Subject: RE: draft-eastlake-rfc2777bis-selection-01.txt

From: Christian Huitema <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 19 Aug 2002 18:21:43 -0700

> Donald Eastlake has requested that
> draft-eastlake-rfc2777bis-selection-01.txt be published as
> an Informational RFC obsoleting RFC 2777.  Harald has asked the NomCom
> WG to review this doc before taking the request to the IESG and IETF
> last call.
> 
> Please take some time to review and to send comments to this list.

After reviewing, the draft appears nearly identical to RFC 2777, the
only very significant change being a recommendation to not use stock
prices and related market indices as sources of randomness. This is
based on past experience, that giving a list of stocks can backfire when
companies merge or get delisted, or that planning to use some reported
numbers can become problematic when the listing unit suddenly changes.

The recommendation appears technically sound, but the process is very
much a geeky option compared to the previous "standard", picking names
from a hat. For that reason, I support a publication as an independent
document rather than incorporation in the base nomcom document: future
nomcom chairs should have the liberty to use the computer based system
described in RFC 2777 (bis), or use instead an analog system with
suitable guarantees.

-- Christian Huitema

---

From: avri doria <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 20 Aug 2002 15:38:19 -0400

> described in RFC 2777 (bis), or use instead an analog system with

There isn't, as far as i know, a proposal to include the material from 
this draft in the base document.  The issue concerns the procedure 
outlined in rfc2777bis  for  handling the possible need to replace one 
of the 10 voting members selected.  One of the criticisms i have heard 
is that if you select members and alternates, then the door is opened to 
inappropriate pressure, either for or against, the replacement of a 
voting member based on the identity of the available alternate.

The issue at hand, as i understood it, was that the procedure for 
selecting alternates/replacements should not be resolved in 2777bis but 
should rather be dealt with in the base document (2727bis).

a.