Re: Challenge: was Re: Updated Nomcom 2020-2021: Result of random selection process

[Michael StJohns <[e-mail]>]

On 7/10/2020 4:25 PM, Yoav Nir wrote:
> WARNING: RFC lawyering follows.
>
> I’m not sure I agree.  Two paragraphs in section 4.17 of RFC 7437 
> govern this.
>
> The first is the second paragraph:
>
>     No more than two volunteers with the same primary affiliation may be
>     selected for the nominating committee.  The Chair reviews the primary
>     affiliation of each volunteer selected by the method in turn.  If the
>     primary affiliation for a volunteer is the same as two previously
>     selected volunteers, that volunteer is removed from consideration and
>     the method is repeated to identify the next eligible volunteer.
>
> Clearly this is the procedure for the chair to follow if she detects 
> that the list contains more than two people with the same affiliation. 
> This is the procedure that was followed to remove Reshad Rahman, but 
> note that the RFC does not call this being disqualified; just “removed 
> from consideration”.  This was not what happened with the Huawei 
> candidates. In that case, the relevant paragraph is the sixth paragraph:
>
>     If a selected volunteer, upon reading the announcement with the list
>     of selected volunteers, finds that two or more other volunteers have
>     the same affiliation, then the volunteer should notify the Chair who
>     will determine the appropriate action.
>
> This puts the determination of how to proceed in the hands of the 
> chair.  She is not required to roll back the clock to simulate a 
> situation in which Luigi Iannone had filled in the volunteer form 
> correctly.

You're mischaracterizing what happened I believe.  Luigi was always a 
Huawei employee, but the chair did not have that information.  Once the 
chair had that information, the results of the selection process needed 
to be corrected so they were based on reality - Note: not "changed".

The whole process is designed to eliminate discretion from the selection 
process.   While I agree that the document says the above, it does not 
mean that the chair may take any action they choose.  E.g. there were 
three Huawei members - what if she kept Luigi and Tal and got rid of 
Xuesong?   We still end up with two Huawei members.  In any event, you 
need to look at more than just the above.

The correct path is to take the list from all common knowledge and work 
from there.  And that list built from the common knowledge (the 
volunteer list, plus associations plus the random seeds) has Luigi on it 
and Tal off of it.   Per

>     It must be possible to repeat the selection method, either through
>     iteration or by restarting in such a way as to remain fair and
>     unbiased.  This is necessary to replace selected volunteers should
>     they become unavailable after selection.

and

>     If a single voting volunteer position on the nominating committee is
>     vacated, regardless of the circumstances, the committee may choose to
>     proceed with only nine voting volunteers at its own discretion.  In
>     all other cases, a new voting member must be selected, and the Chair
>     must repeat the random selection process including an announcement of
>     the iteration prior to the actual selection as stated elsewhere in
>     this document.

If Luigi declines to take the position, "the chair must repeat the 
random selection process" or work with 9 members.   In general, that's 
meant continuing down the list, not going back and picking up someone 
who was already not selected.


> I believe she has made such a determination, and has acted within the 
> mandate of RFC 7437.

Luigi indicating he works for Huawei restructures the list and 
eliminates Tal.  Luigi indicating he won't serve triggers 5.7. These are 
two separate events.

This is not ambiguous.

Mike



>
> Yoav