Re: [Gendispatch] Re: Comments on Composition and Comportment of the IETF Nominating Committee draft
Mallory Knodel <[email protected]> Wed, 22 Jul 2026 13:34:37 -0400
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.general |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <CABMXHrE1GbzQy5kYH2ikjREmvZ2xZWAu=0BD1upoY_6WmYxJGA@mail.gmail.com> |
--0000000000007686d60657368ed6 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi Eric, Respectfully, you=E2=80=99re over complicating this discussion with a lot o= f gish gallup. I=E2=80=99m not conflating two things, I=E2=80=99m using the quoted text to= indicate that the intersection of them both can afford us a satisfactory solution. We need not trouble as much over the privacy considerations of gender assignment, nor do we need the process to disclose the purpose of the skip. -M On Wed, Jul 22, 2026 at 12:58 Eric Rescorla <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On Wed, Jul 22, 2026 at 9:37=E2=80=AFAM Mallory Knodel <mallory.knodel@ny= u.edu> > wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> On Wed, Jul 22, 2026 at 12:27=E2=80=AFPM Eric Rescorla <[email protected]> wr= ote: >> >>> >>> >>> On Wed, Jul 22, 2026 at 9:20=E2=80=AFAM Salz, Rich <[email protected]> w= rote: >>> >>>> >>>> - The result of this would be to make the selection process not >>>> publicly >>>> - verifiable. >>>> >>>> >>>> I=E2=80=99m not so sure that this is true. To pick an obvious method, = it might >>>> require public disclosure of the gender of those skipped over, to show= that >>>> you had to go to a different candidate. Or we could decide to require= that >>>> being a NomCom volunteer might require disclosing your gender. >>>> >>> >>> Yes, but these are both in contradiction with the paragraph >>> directly above which >>> requires them to be private. >>> >>> >> I think that what could happen is the reasons for the skips are not >> disclosed, corporate or otherwise. The section from RFC8713 says, >> >> "The number of NomCom members with the same primary affiliation is >> limited in order to avoid the appearance of improper bias in choosing th= e >> leadership of the IETF. *Rather than defining precise rules for how to >> define "affiliation", the IETF community depends on the honor and integr= ity >> of the participants to make the process work*." >> >> Emphasis on this language is probably what we should copy wholesale for >> this draft, too. >> > > I think this conflates two questions: > > 1. Whether it's possible to verify that participants have accurately > represented themselves. > 2. Whether it is possible to verify that given a candidate list the > selection process picked the correct people. > > The current system deals with this as follows: > > 1. The entire list is published along with affiliations. > 2. The selection process selects from that list given the affiliations. > > It's partly possible to verify (1) by looking to see if someone appears > to have misrepresented their affiliation, and I assume that if someone > just obviously did so, the community would challenge them. > > It's possible to verify (2) completely based on the published list. This > does not require trusting the nomcom chair. > > > >> Now, if the reasons for the skips are not officially disclosed and just >> presented without commentary I think this is probably good enough to not >> have to gender every single IETFer and still provides verifiability for = the >> nomcom process. >> > > > Perhaps we should start by stating what "verifiable" means in this > context. What I mean is that a third party can verify for themselves > that the algorithm was correctly executed. What you describe is not > verifiable according to this definition. > > To make things simpler, consider what happens if we wanted to select > a three person nomcom. The initial draw gives us the following > ordered list of candidates and genders: > > Candidate Gender > 1 A > 2 B > 3 A > 4 A > 5 A > > The correct selection here is just to draw candidates 1-3 because > there would be at least one person of each gender. However, the chair > decides that they prefer candidate 4 to candidate 3 and so decides to > skip 3 and select 4. This is precisely what a verifiable algorithm > is intended to prevent, but the only way to know that this is wrong is > to know the underlying genders for these candidates. > > Re "gendering every single IETFer", well sort of. As I stated in > my original message, each volunteer would need to reveal their > gender to the nomcom chair, but only the genders of enough > people to demonstrate that there is at least one person from > each gender need to be publicly revealed. > > -Ekr > > > > > --0000000000007686d60657368ed6 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable <div dir=3D"auto">Hi Eric,</div><div dir=3D"auto"><br></div><div dir=3D"aut= o">Respectfully, you=E2=80=99re over complicating this discussion with a lo= t of gish gallup.=C2=A0</div><div dir=3D"auto"><br></div><div dir=3D"auto">= I=E2=80=99m not conflating two things, I=E2=80=99m using the quoted text to= indicate that the intersection of them both can afford us a satisfactory s= olution.=C2=A0</div><div dir=3D"auto"><br></div><div dir=3D"auto">We<span s= tyle=3D"font-family:-apple-system,sans-serif">=C2=A0need not trouble as muc= h over the privacy considerations of gender assignment, nor do we need the = process to disclose the purpose of the skip.=C2=A0</span></div><div dir=3D"= auto"><span style=3D"font-family:-apple-system,sans-serif"><br></span></div= ><div dir=3D"auto"><span style=3D"font-family:-apple-system,sans-serif">-M<= /span></div><div dir=3D"auto"><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote gmail_quote_con= tainer" dir=3D"auto"><div dir=3D"ltr" class=3D"gmail_attr">On Wed, Jul 22, = 2026 at 12:58 Eric Rescorla <<a href=3D"mailto:[email protected]">[email protected]= m</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin= :0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir=3D"ltr"><= div dir=3D"ltr"><div dir=3D"ltr"><div dir=3D"ltr"><br></div><br><div class= =3D"gmail_quote"><div dir=3D"ltr" class=3D"gmail_attr">On Wed, Jul 22, 2026= at 9:37=E2=80=AFAM Mallory Knodel <<a href=3D"mailto:mallory.knodel@nyu= .edu" target=3D"_blank">[email protected]</a>> wrote:<br></div><blo= ckquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left= :1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div dir=3D"ltr"><div dir=3D"= ltr"><div>Hi,</div><div><br></div></div><div class=3D"gmail_quote"><div dir= =3D"ltr" class=3D"gmail_attr">On Wed, Jul 22, 2026 at 12:27=E2=80=AFPM Eric= Rescorla <<a href=3D"mailto:[email protected]" target=3D"_blank">[email protected]= m</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin= :0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"= ><div dir=3D"ltr"><div dir=3D"ltr"><br></div><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote"= ><div dir=3D"ltr" class=3D"gmail_attr">On Wed, Jul 22, 2026 at 9:20=E2=80= =AFAM Salz, Rich <<a href=3D"mailto:[email protected]" target=3D"_blank">= [email protected]</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" = style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);pa= dding-left:1ex"> <div> <ul style=3D"direction:ltr;margin-top:0px;margin-bottom:0px"> <li style=3D"font-family:Aptos,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:12pt;co= lor:rgb(0,0,0);direction:ltr;margin-top:0px;margin-bottom:0px;list-style-ty= pe:"\0027a2 ""> <div role=3D"presentation" style=3D"direction:ltr">The result of this would= be to make the selection process not publicly</div> </li><li style=3D"font-family:Aptos,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:12= pt;color:rgb(0,0,0);direction:ltr;margin-top:0px;margin-bottom:0px;list-sty= le-type:"\0027a2 ""> <div role=3D"presentation" style=3D"direction:ltr">verifiable.</div> </li></ul> <div style=3D"direction:ltr;font-family:Aptos,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;fo= nt-size:12pt;color:rgb(0,0,0)"> <br> </div><div style=3D"direction:ltr;font-family:Aptos,Arial,Helvetica,sans-se= rif;font-size:12pt;color:rgb(0,0,0)"> I=E2=80=99m not so sure that this is true. To pick an obvious method, it mi= ght require public disclosure of the gender of those skipped over, to show = that you had to go to a different candidate.=C2=A0 Or we could decide to re= quire that being a NomCom volunteer might require disclosing your gender.</div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Yes, b= ut these are both in contradiction with=C2=A0the paragraph directly=C2=A0ab= ove which</div><div>requires them to be private.</div><div><br></div></div>= </div></blockquote><div><div><br></div><div>I think that what could happen = is the reasons for the skips are not disclosed, corporate or otherwise. The section from RFC8713 says,</div><di= v><br></div><div>"The number of NomCom members with the same primary affiliation is limited in order to avoid the appearance of improper bias in choosing the leadership of the IETF. <b><u><i>Rather than defining precise rules for how to define "affiliation", the IETF community depends on the honor and integrity of the participants to make the process work</i></u></b>."</div><div= ><br></div><div>Emphasis on this language is probably what we should copy w= holesale for this draft, too.</div></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br>= </div><div><div>I think this conflates two questions:</div><div><br></div><= div>1. Whether it's possible to verify that participants have accuratel= y represented themselves.</div><div>2. Whether it is possible to verify tha= t given a candidate list the selection process picked the correct people.</= div><div><br></div><div>The current system=C2=A0deals with this as follows:= </div><div><br></div><div>1. The entire list is published along with affili= ations.</div><div>2. The selection process selects from that list given the= affiliations.</div><div><br></div><div>It's partly possible to verify = (1) by looking to see if someone appears</div><div>to have misrepresented t= heir affiliation, and I assume that if someone</div><div>just obviously did= so, the community would challenge them.</div><div><br></div><div>It's = possible to verify (2) completely based on the published list. This</div><d= iv>does not require trusting the nomcom chair.</div><div><br></div>=C2=A0</= div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;bor= der-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div dir=3D"ltr"><div= class=3D"gmail_quote"><div><div>Now, if the reasons for the skips are not officially disclosed and=C2=A0just=20 presented without commentary I think this is probably good enough to not have to gender every single IETFer and still provides verifiability for the nomcom process.</div></div></div></div></blockquote><br></div><div cla= ss=3D"gmail_quote"><br>Perhaps we should start by stating what "verifi= able" means in this<br>context. What I mean is that a third party can = verify for themselves<br>that the algorithm was correctly executed.=C2=A0 W= hat you describe is not<br>verifiable according to this definition.<br><br>= To make things simpler, consider what happens if we wanted to select<br>a t= hree person nomcom. The initial draw gives us the following<br>ordered list= of candidates and genders:<br><br>Candidate =C2=A0 =C2=A0Gender<br>1 =C2= =A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 A<br>2 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 = =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 B<br>3 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2= =A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 A<br>4 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 = =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 A<br>5 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2= =A0 =C2=A0 A<br><br>The correct selection here is just to draw candidates 1= -3 because<br>there would be at least one person of each gender. However, t= he chair<br>decides that they prefer candidate 4 to candidate 3 and so deci= des to<br>skip 3 and select 4. This is precisely what a verifiable algorith= m</div><div class=3D"gmail_quote">is intended to prevent, but the only way = to know that this is wrong is</div><div class=3D"gmail_quote">to know the u= nderlying genders for these candidates.<br><br></div><div class=3D"gmail_qu= ote">Re "gendering every single IETFer", well sort of. As I state= d in</div><div class=3D"gmail_quote"><div>my original message, each volunte= er would need to reveal their</div><div>gender to the nomcom chair, but onl= y the genders of enough</div><div>people to demonstrate that there is at le= ast one person from</div><div>each gender need to be publicly revealed.</di= v><div><br></div><div>-Ekr</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></di= v><br></div></div> </div> </div> </blockquote></div></div> --0000000000007686d60657368ed6--