Re: Challenge: was Re: Updated Nomcom 2020-2021: Result of random selection process
Toerless Eckert <tte@cs.fau.de> Sat, 11 July 2020 05:56 UTC
Return-Path: <eckert@i4.informatik.uni-erlangen.de>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C69AF3A08CD for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 10 Jul 2020 22:56:09 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.65
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.65 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.249, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 9JrG3rj2cV1D for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 10 Jul 2020 22:56:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from faui40.informatik.uni-erlangen.de (faui40.informatik.uni-erlangen.de [131.188.34.40]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B821E3A08DC for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 10 Jul 2020 22:56:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from faui48f.informatik.uni-erlangen.de (faui48f.informatik.uni-erlangen.de [IPv6:2001:638:a000:4134::ffff:52]) by faui40.informatik.uni-erlangen.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 414CB548047; Sat, 11 Jul 2020 07:56:02 +0200 (CEST)
Received: by faui48f.informatik.uni-erlangen.de (Postfix, from userid 10463) id 379CD440043; Sat, 11 Jul 2020 07:56:02 +0200 (CEST)
Date: Sat, 11 Jul 2020 07:56:02 +0200
From: Toerless Eckert <tte@cs.fau.de>
To: Melinda Shore <melinda.shore@gmail.com>
Cc: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: Challenge: was Re: Updated Nomcom 2020-2021: Result of random selection process
Message-ID: <20200711055602.GI49328@faui48f.informatik.uni-erlangen.de>
References: <b4f5a3cf-5fab-8188-926a-a4100f776610@comcast.net> <1112046E-04ED-4DB1-8766-4928AC5D15F5@akamai.com> <20200711002800.GC49328@faui48f.informatik.uni-erlangen.de> <17D66D97-9F29-470C-83CA-53C48F49D323@strayalpha.com> <20200711011915.GE49328@faui48f.informatik.uni-erlangen.de> <20200711012801.GE16335@kduck.mit.edu> <20200711021620.GF49328@faui48f.informatik.uni-erlangen.de> <20200711030418.GN16335@kduck.mit.edu> <20200711034640.GH49328@faui48f.informatik.uni-erlangen.de> <4ae94a1e-e1e8-3860-a7df-158393df2031@gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <4ae94a1e-e1e8-3860-a7df-158393df2031@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/u6D7B9sQkoXpN85u_CtGH5AG7yw>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ietf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 11 Jul 2020 05:56:10 -0000
On Fri, Jul 10, 2020 at 08:14:17PM -0800, Melinda Shore wrote: > On 7/10/20 7:46 PM, Toerless Eckert wrote: > > Of course i haven't really thought about what i would think about the > > improbable stochastically impossible evil conspiracy theory that was > > invented in this thread, > > I really wish you'd stop diminishing this issue Please remember that the sentence was in the context of attempts to do evil by a switcharoo. This discussion was at all NOT about loyalty bias that is influencing nomcom members. > and in particular would stop mocking it. I did not introduce the term EvilCo into the discussion, i was just commenting on it. How else should i have written that its stochastically extremely unlikely to be able to push a specific other company employee into NomCom. Hence its IMHO very unlikely that any evil but not stupid company would attempt to do that. But if thats what would happen, then that would be an evil conspiracy IMHO. > It seems unlikely to me that it's changed > anybody's mind, particularly of those of us who've been around long > enough to see companies actually attempt to stuff nomcom. What you call stuffing, others might call one contributor, one voice. The larger the percentage of contributors from fewer, larger companies is, the less fair the max2 rule is wrt. for proportional representation of the interests of those contributors in what are IETF elections. In the whole long thread i initiated 2? weeks ago about that, nobody even bothered to even acknowledge that fact, less than to think about whether the current rules could be made more fair. > However, > even if it's not a deliberate attempt bias can creep in because of some > companies supporting employee participation in nomcom while others > do not (not to mention people who participate on their own). Sure, the individuals or companies not participating in the elections have not seen enough reason to care about their outcomes by participating in them. Nothing special about NomCom vs. any other elections. What is your point ? > It's not evil in any particular sense, it's self-interested. But, > it's also a source of bias and it's reasonable to try to eliminate > bias in the selection process. If you perceive other sources of > bias definitely feel free to put together a proposal to deal with > them. > > At any rate, you've made the same argument repeatedly and I > think you're entering the realm of diminishing returns. I did not talk about the loyalty bias problem at all in this nomcom thread, just about the switcharoo theory in response to prior mails in the thread. You are the one who brought up the bias issue in this mail. Cheers Toerless > > Thanks, > > Melinda > > > -- > Melinda Shore > melinda.shore@gmail.com > > Software longa, hardware brevis -- --- tte@cs.fau.de
- Updated Nomcom 2020-2021: Result of random select… NomCom Chair 2020
- Challenge: was Re: Updated Nomcom 2020-2021: Resu… Michael StJohns
- Re: Challenge: was Re: Updated Nomcom 2020-2021: … Salz, Rich
- Re: Challenge: was Re: Updated Nomcom 2020-2021: … Mary B
- Re: Challenge: was Re: Updated Nomcom 2020-2021: … Kyle Rose
- Re: Challenge: was Re: Updated Nomcom 2020-2021: … John C Klensin
- Re: Challenge: was Re: Updated Nomcom 2020-2021: … Yoav Nir
- Re: Challenge: was Re: Updated Nomcom 2020-2021: … Samuel Weiler
- Re: Challenge: was Re: Updated Nomcom 2020-2021: … Toerless Eckert
- Re: Challenge: was Re: Updated Nomcom 2020-2021: … Martin Duke
- Re: Challenge: was Re: Updated Nomcom 2020-2021: … Michael StJohns
- Re: Challenge: was Re: Updated Nomcom 2020-2021: … Toerless Eckert
- Re: Challenge: was Re: Updated Nomcom 2020-2021: … Olafur Gudmundsson
- Re: Challenge: was Re: Updated Nomcom 2020-2021: … Toerless Eckert
- Re: Challenge: was Re: Updated Nomcom 2020-2021: … Joseph Touch
- Re: Challenge: was Re: Updated Nomcom 2020-2021: … Toerless Eckert
- Re: Challenge: was Re: Updated Nomcom 2020-2021: … Toerless Eckert
- Re: Challenge: was Re: Updated Nomcom 2020-2021: … Benjamin Kaduk
- Re: Challenge: was Re: Updated Nomcom 2020-2021: … Toerless Eckert
- Re: Challenge: was Re: Updated Nomcom 2020-2021: … Joseph Touch
- Re: Challenge: was Re: Updated Nomcom 2020-2021: … Benjamin Kaduk
- Re: Challenge: was Re: Updated Nomcom 2020-2021: … Toerless Eckert
- Re: Challenge: was Re: Updated Nomcom 2020-2021: … Toerless Eckert
- Re: Challenge: was Re: Updated Nomcom 2020-2021: … Melinda Shore
- Re: Challenge: was Re: Updated Nomcom 2020-2021: … Joseph Touch
- Re: Challenge: was Re: Updated Nomcom 2020-2021: … Toerless Eckert
- Re: Challenge: was Re: Updated Nomcom 2020-2021: … Toerless Eckert
- Re: Challenge: was Re: Updated Nomcom 2020-2021: … Yoav Nir
- Re: Challenge: was Re: Updated Nomcom 2020-2021: … Yoav Nir
- Re: Challenge: was Re: Updated Nomcom 2020-2021: … Yoav Nir
- Re: Challenge: was Re: Updated Nomcom 2020-2021: … Eliot Lear
- Re: Challenge: was Re: Updated Nomcom 2020-2021: … Toerless Eckert
- Re: Challenge: was Re: Updated Nomcom 2020-2021: … Toerless Eckert
- Re: Challenge: was Re: Updated Nomcom 2020-2021: … Michael StJohns
- Re: Challenge: was Re: Updated Nomcom 2020-2021: … Yoav Nir
- Re: Challenge: was Re: Updated Nomcom 2020-2021: … Yoav Nir
- Re: Challenge: was Re: Updated Nomcom 2020-2021: … Rob Sayre
- Re: Challenge: was Re: Updated Nomcom 2020-2021: … Toerless Eckert
- Re: Challenge: was Re: Updated Nomcom 2020-2021: … Brian E Carpenter
- Re: Challenge: was Re: Updated Nomcom 2020-2021: … Mike StJohns
- Re: Challenge: was Re: Updated Nomcom 2020-2021: … Victor Kuarsingh
- RE: Challenge: was Re: Updated Nomcom 2020-2021: … STARK, BARBARA H
- RE: Challenge: was Re: Updated Nomcom 2020-2021: … Vittorio Bertola
- Re: Challenge: was Re: Updated Nomcom 2020-2021: … Eliot Lear
- Re: Challenge: was Re: Updated Nomcom 2020-2021: … Michael StJohns
- RE: Challenge: was Re: Updated Nomcom 2020-2021: … STARK, BARBARA H
- Re: Challenge: was Re: Updated Nomcom 2020-2021: … Michael StJohns
- Challenge: Re: Challenge: was Re: Updated Nomcom … Toerless Eckert
- Re: Challenge: Re: Challenge: was Re: Updated Nom… Mike StJohns
- Re: Challenge: Re: Challenge: was Re: Updated Nom… John C Klensin
- Re: Challenge: Re: Challenge: was Re: Updated Nom… Toerless Eckert
- Re: Challenge: Re: Challenge: was Re: Updated Nom… Toerless Eckert
- Re: Challenge: Re: Challenge: was Re: Updated Nom… Benjamin Kaduk
- Re: Challenge: Re: Challenge: was Re: Updated Nom… Toerless Eckert
- Re: Challenge: was Re: Updated Nomcom 2020-2021: … Rob Sayre
- Re: Challenge: Re: Challenge: was Re: Updated Nom… John C Klensin
- Re: Challenge: Re: Challenge: was Re: Updated Nom… Toerless Eckert
- Re: Challenge: Re: Challenge: was Re: Updated Nom… S Moonesamy
- RE: Challenge: was Re: Updated Nomcom 2020-2021: … Mehmet Ersue
- Re: Challenge: Re: Challenge: was Re: Updated Nom… Samuel Weiler
- Re: Challenge: Re: Challenge: was Re: Updated Nom… Victor Kuarsingh
- Re: Challenge: Re: Challenge: was Re: Updated Nom… S Moonesamy
- Re: Challenge: Re: Challenge: was Re: Updated Nom… Victor Kuarsingh
- RE: Challenge: Re: Challenge: was Re: Updated Nom… STARK, BARBARA H
- Additional advisors (was: RE: Challenge: Re: Chal… Samuel Weiler
- Re: Challenge: Re: Challenge: was Re: Updated Nom… Warren Kumari
- Re: Additional advisors (was: RE: Challenge: Re: … John C Klensin
- Re: Additional advisors (was: RE: Challenge: Re: … Mary B
- Re: Additional advisors (was: RE: Challenge: Re: … Scott O. Bradner
- Re: Additional advisors (was: RE: Challenge: Re: … Victor Kuarsingh
- Re: Additional advisors (was: RE: Challenge: Re: … Michael Richardson
- Re: Additional advisors (was: RE: Challenge: Re: … Pete Resnick
- Re: Additional advisors (was: RE: Challenge: Re: … Scott O. Bradner
- Re: Additional advisors (was: RE: Challenge: Re: … John C Klensin
- Re: Additional advisors (was: RE: Challenge: Re: … Samuel Weiler
- Re: Additional advisors (was: RE: Challenge: Re: … Pete Resnick
- RE: Additional advisors (was: RE: Challenge: Re: … STARK, BARBARA H
- Re: Additional advisors (was: RE: Challenge: Re: … Randy Bush
- Re: Additional advisors Brian E Carpenter