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

Toerless Eckert <> Sat, 11 July 2020 05:56 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id C69AF3A08CD for <>; Fri, 10 Jul 2020 22:56:09 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.65
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 ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 9JrG3rj2cV1D for <>; Fri, 10 Jul 2020 22:56:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B821E3A08DC for <>; Fri, 10 Jul 2020 22:56:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2001:638:a000:4134::ffff:52]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 414CB548047; Sat, 11 Jul 2020 07:56:02 +0200 (CEST)
Received: by (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 <>
To: Melinda Shore <>
Subject: Re: Challenge: was Re: Updated Nomcom 2020-2021: Result of random selection process
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13)
Archived-At: <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-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.


> Thanks,
> Melinda
> -- 
> Melinda Shore
> Software longa, hardware brevis