> With all of this talk lately about RPICH and others & and how they *all* seem
> to be so "unfair" in various respects, how difficult would it be for an
> informed math/stats guru to develop a new method which takes all of the
> meaningful criteria into account?
 
In order to make a more "meaningful" or "accurate" rating, someone has
to decide what *exactly* the criteria should be.  Right now, with
a multitude of rating systems available, there is no consensus on
what the correct ordering should be and why.
 
> Also, if the existing methods aren't meaningful enough, why hasn't someone in
> a position to change it taken any step in the right direction?
 
given that the selection committee still has some discretion, they seem
reasonably satisfied with the current system. The biggest complaints
that I have heard are not the details of the RPI, but using any kind of
rating at all, instead of doing it purely subjectively.
 
 
        --david