Subject: Fixing the algorithm

From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2006 18:23:17 -0700

"The philosophers have analysed the IETF election process in many ways, the point is to change it"

If you are going to have a procedure like this it would be best to eliminate the influence of the listing process to the greatest extent possible, discussing this with my wife, a political scientist we came up with the following fix:

Instead of using the rank order in the list as the source of randomness use the email address specified by the candidate. Ie [email-masked], [email-masked] etc.

Key = hash (data)

Take HMAC (email, key) for each candidate, list them in order, highest n candidates win.

If there is an eligibility problem it is easily sorted, if a person was on the original list who should not have been they are simply excluded, the result is unaffected. 

If someone was excluded from the list you run a second seed event for that candidate alone, the scores already calculated are left unchanged. If their score placess them in the top n then they are selected.

> From: Eastlake III Donald-LDE008 
> [mailto:[email-masked]] 

> John,
> 
> If the selection method is random, it makes no difference 
> whatsoever how the list of nomcom volunteers is ordered. It 
> only matters that the numbered list become fixed and be 
> posted before the selection information is available. 
> Alphabetic or the order they volunteered or any other order 
> is perfectly fine.
> 
> Donald

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf