Subject: Re: DISCUSSION: publish list of nominees?

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 03 Apr 2002 15:48:24 +0200

Robert Elz wrote:
> 
>     Date:        Thu, 28 Mar 2002 15:18:15 +0100
>     From:        Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
>     Message-ID:  <[email-masked]>
> 
>   | I don't see that. Publishing a snapshot of the list of *nominees* (not
>   | *candidates*)
> 
> I understand the distinction.
> 
>   | exactly once works perfectly well to broaden the scope of community input.
> 
> So the nomcom gets to hear all the bad (and sometimes good) things about the
> initial list they selected, and nothing at all about the replacements they
> picked after hearing all that bad stuff???

I would assume that they would consult people as today about any new names
that came up. But you're correct, there is an asymmetry.
> 
> That sounds like a thoroughly unfair and ineffective way to make progress,
> and a very good way to make sure that no-one with half a brain would agree
> to be nominated until after the list had been published.

Fair enough, so maybe a hard cutoff for nominations is needed. That is what
most organisations do anyway.

   Brian

---

From: Geoff Huston <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 04 Apr 2002 14:02:37 +1000

>most organisations do anyway.

And at that point the Nomcom loses any ability to arm twist  to ensure that 
they really have managed to find the best individuals available. Maybe 
there's a view that this is not necessarily a bad thing, but experience has 
indicated that Nomcoms do tend to work up to the wire in attempting to 
convince suitably qualified folk that they should be considered. A cut off 
date for nominations tends to dilute the Nomcom's brief to find the best 
person for each role from the entire IETF community to a more qualified 
task of selecting the best person from a fixed set of names. I'm not sure 
how this would result in a better outcome for the IETF.

(unless of course one were to abuse this by putting _everyone_ on the 
initial list by the cutoff date, in which case the entire exercise of a 
list of nominees list and the cutoff date for inclusion in this list 
becomes a somewhat pointless exercise)

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 04 Apr 2002 10:09:36 +0200

> how this would result in a better outcome for the IETF.

In fact it would only work in conjunction with stretching the whole
timescale as Ted sugggested, i.e. moving the "wire" earlier - so the 
package we have to decide about is

a) add 3 or 4 months to the timeline by starting NomCom one meeting sooner
b) define a firm date after which NomCom will not consider new nominees
c) publish & regularly update the list of willing nominees, freezing it on that date 

The claimed benefit is that it will ensure that NomCom has considered all
reasonable nominees and input from the entire community, and give time for
effective NomCom response if a confirming body chooses to reject a candidate.

    Brian

---

From: Geoff Huston <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 04 Apr 2002 20:52:16 +1000

>effective NomCom response if a confirming body chooses to reject a candidate.

Brian, I cannot understand how this "package" answers my doubts that
thisproposal effectively diluted the Nomcom's role from seeking the best 
available
candidate (for some arm-twisted value of 'available') to picking from a 
fixed list.

I don't think your response addresses this issue.

---

From: Robert Elz <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 04 Apr 2002 18:05:31 +0700

Date:        Thu, 04 Apr 2002 20:52:16 +1000
    From:        Geoff Huston <[email-masked]>
    Message-ID:  <[email-masked]>

  | I don't think your response addresses this issue.

It didn't.

The deadline proposal (any earlier than the date at which the
candidates are presented to be confirmed) is plain silly.

For example, if you have a deadline (say January 1) at which the
list of confirmed nominees is frozen, what happens if on Jan 10
(perhaps as a result of seeing the published list) all of the potential
candidates for some position withdraw?

Now the list is frozen, the nomcom cannot go find someone else, they'd
have to leave a vacancy, to be filled sometime after the relevant
body is appointed.

That's ridiculous.

All of this (deadlines, and exposing lists) also needs to consider
how a nomcom goes about filling a casual vacancy.  Currently we expect it
to operate just the same way as it does when doing its "normal" job.
Except it is usually expected to be quicker, as there's usually just
one position to fill (the same process, compressed).

If that is to continue, and I think it should, then all this stuff
about deadlines, making the list public, ... would have to be made
to work in this case as well.

Once again, I am waiting for someone to actually propose a precise method
by which all of this could be done, and how it would be expected to work.

So far, I'm seeing nothing except "doing this looks like it might have
this advantage" with no actual investigation of just how it would
function, and what the actual procedures would be.

kre

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 04 Apr 2002 13:22:41 +0200

> I don't think your response addresses this issue.

It was meant to. There is always a deadline by which the arm-twisting has
to stop, set by this sentence from 2727:
      The annual selection and confirmation process is expected to be
      completed one month prior to the friday of the week before the
      First IETF
The effect of the changes would be to move the arm-twisting deadline 
earlier, to the date on which the final list of nominees was published. 
But if we give the NomCom more time anyway, I don't see why this
dilutes their ability to seek the best people.

   Brian

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 04 Apr 2002 13:29:10 +0200

kre,

The error cases have to be handled (as they have to be under 
today's rules). But I thought we were trying to reach a decision 
of principle first, rather than work out all the details. 

   Brian

Robert Elz wrote:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription
> manager: <http://lists.elistx.com/subscribe>

-- 
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Brian E Carpenter 
Distinguished Engineer, Internet Standards & Technology, IBM 
On assignment at the IBM Zurich Laboratory, Switzerland
Board Chairman, Internet Society http://www.isoc.org
INET 2002, Washington, DC, 18-21 June http://www.inet2002.org

---

From: Robert Elz <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 04 Apr 2002 20:18:14 +0700

Date:        Thu, 04 Apr 2002 13:29:10 +0200
    From:        Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
    Message-ID:  <[email-masked]>

  | The error cases have to be handled (as they have to be under 
  | today's rules). But I thought we were trying to reach a decision 
  | of principle first, rather than work out all the details. 

Once again, I vehemently object to that approach.

Decide the principle first is the approach taken by people who know
they can never succeed if everyone is aware of the details first.
So, instead they create some nice sounding principle, get people to
buy into that, and then having decided the principle, can convince
people that one way or another, they simply have to make it work.

Eg: (for something completely unrelated to networks, etc...) it might be
nice if everyone would agree to the principle that sunscreen should be
available to everyone at the beach.   Just concentrate on the principle
and you can probably get people to agree to that.

Now we just have to make it work - not everyone can afford sunscreen, so
clearly we have to find some means to acquire it, that's easy, we'll just
(one way or another) tax people to raise the funds.   After all we have
already agreed that sunscreen has to be available to everyone, that's the
only way that seems to work.   Then, not everyone goes to the beach, but
we already agreed that sunscreen should be available to everyone at the
beach, so we'll just require everyone attend their nearest beach, that's
the only way to get the sunscreen to everyone ...

Of course, that's absurd, but it is also the approach being advocated here.

So, no, reaching a decision of principle first is *NOT* the aim.  If
you want to write a proposal that actually deals with all of the details,
then perhaps you will get me to agree with it.  I will never agree with
just the principle.

kre

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 04 Apr 2002 15:53:36 +0200

> they can never succeed if everyone is aware of the details first.

Fiddlesticks.

Obviously, if we discover unfixable bugs in the details later, we
have to backtrack; but nobody is going to waste time on writing up
a complete model unless there is enough support to make the effort
worthwhile.

Mr proto-Chair of the proto-WG... your turn.

   Brian

---

From: Robert Elz <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 04 Apr 2002 22:33:07 +0700

Date:        Thu, 04 Apr 2002 15:53:36 +0200
    From:        Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
    Message-ID:  <[email-masked]>

  | but nobody is going to waste time on writing up
  | a complete model unless there is enough support to make the effort
  | worthwhile.

That's fine, I have no problem with that - but there's a difference between
gauging support for the general idea, and reaching consensus on the principle.

Just having this debate should be showing people what support exists for,
and against, the general notions.  No problem with doing that (ie: I am
not suggesting that debate should be halted until there's a concrete
proposal - since I'm doing a fair amount of the debating, that would be
a bit hypocritical).

What we shouldn't be doing is attempt to actually decide any kind of
issue of principle.

If after viewing what is said here, someone feels that they have an idea
about how it can work, and judges that there's been enough support expressed,
then it can be written up (probably initially just as an e-mail to the
list - we're only talking about what will be a paragraph or so of the
final doc after all).

Then we can actually see if support for the particular proposal exists.

kre

---

From: Geoff Huston <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 05 Apr 2002 06:26:06 +1000

>dilutes their ability to seek the best people.

I see these as quite different situations - and Robert Elz's comments have addressed part of my concerns. 

Let me add to his response a little.  It may not be obvious to any but the arm twister and the chosen victim, but it is not uncommon for the nomcom to resort to socket-wrenching arm twisting (and here I draw on personal experience). This generally occurs when there is noone left standing close to a vacant slot. Highly qualified individuals often do not readily have massive amounts of available time to devote to unpaid voluntary efforts. I'm sure its been quite common (and I've seen in when I've been chair and liaison numerous times) to resort to various forms of extreme pressure to coerce such individuals to be considered. 

Unfortunately,  this is no longer an option under what you are proposing. I fail to see how the task of filling up names for a published slate with a defined deadline will have a comparable ability to ensure that such individuals can be convinced (or press-ganged) that their energy and abilities can be of value of the IETF. This, to me, is a dilution of the Nomcom's ability to select the best individuals for the roles.

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 05 Apr 2002 11:12:38 +0200

> Unfortunately,  this is no longer an option under what you are proposing. I fail to see how the task of filling up names for a published slate with a defined deadline will have a comparable ability…

Thanks Geoff, I think this is a very clear statement of the issue. 
What you are telling us is that sometimes it is very hard work to talk 
the best candidates into accepting the job, and imposing a hard closing
date for nominations could make it impossible. Right?

   Brian

---

From: Geoff Huston <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 05 Apr 2002 21:54:14 +1000

>date for nominations could make it impossible. Right?

Yep, that's my point.

thanks,

   Geoff

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 05 Apr 2002 15:39:47 +0200

> >date for nominations could make it impossible. Right?

OK. I withdraw my proposal to publish the list of nominees, on the 
assumption that
a) we will stretch the timescale, to allow a non-panic response
   in the event that the confirming body rejects a candidate
b) we will clarify the role of the confirming bodies (and their
   liaisons) in verifying that due process has been followed by NomCom.

    Brian

---

From: Scott Brim <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 05 Apr 2002 09:04:20 -0500

>    liaisons) in verifying that due process has been followed by NomCom.

Sounds good.

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 05 Apr 2002 21:00:57 -0500

--On Friday, 05 April, 2002 15:39 +0200 Brian E Carpenter
<[email-masked]> wrote:

> OK. I withdraw my proposal to publish the list of nominees, on
> the  assumption that

Brian, Geoff,

Let me suggest that one additional bit of tuning might be useful
to capture what may be the core goal that started this thread:

Today, 2727 essentially says "everything having to do with
candidates is confidential".  It seems to me from the
observation and recent postings that nomcoms have figured out
that, sometimes, the goal of maximum and uniform confidentiality
is in conflict with the goal of maximum diversity and quality of
input.  A few present and past nomcom members have even
suggested that having recognized that conflict, they have
figured out ways to avoid the rules a bit.

Would it be useful to say, explicitly, that confidentiality
about comments made about candidates is the primary requirement
and that nomcoms may decide to relax confidentiality about,
e.g., the list of candidates under consideration for a given
position if they determine that is needed to get good input.

That would have a few advantages over our current situation
while, I would assume, changing nothing most of the time.  By
giving the decision explicitly to the nomcom, we give them a bit
more discretion to evaluate the circumstances they are facing
and to deal with it.  It also makes the decision to relax the
rules a _nomcom_ decision, subject to whatever checks, balances,
and reviews exist in the process, rather than being a decision
that individuals on the nomcom are quietly making for themselves
(decisions that are essentially indistinguishable from random or
goal-serving leaks).  I would also assume that a confirming body
could challenge the nomcom for making or not making such a
decision if it seemed to have an adverse impact on selection of
quality nominees and that the range of discretion would extend
all the way to publishing lists if the nomcom concluded that was
necessary -- although I would hope we could avoid going into
that much detail.

It would seem to do two other things for us:

(i) The nomcom gets clear guidance on the priorities, guidance
which, if I correctly interpret the remarks on the list, the
community generally agrees on anyway.

(ii) It properly warns people that the fact that their names are
being considered is not a hard secret.  One of the concerns
about today's process is that, if someone really expected
confidentiality about being considered, almost any broad
input-seeking process is going to compromise that to some
degree, and we might as well be clear about it.   On the other
hand, if the nomcom started twisted someone's arm and he or she
agreed to be considered only in return for strict
confidentiality (I can imagine several types of situations in
which that would be appropriate and necessary and will go
through them if needed), the nomcom ought to be able to
negotiate those conditions if they  thought them appropriate.

     john

---

From: Geoff Huston <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 08 Apr 2002 09:53:51 +1000

>    liaisons) in verifying that due process has been followed by NomCom.

This sounds appropriate to me

  Geoff

---

From: Theodore Tso <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2002 14:10:48 -0400

>    liaisons) in verifying that due process has been followed by NomCom.

One of the things which really should be clarified here is how input
is appropriate to be shared with the confirming bodies.

I'm still not comfortable with a process where the definition of "Due
Process" seems to be the confirming body asking a series of questions
of the form "Did you ask Foo?", "Did you solicit the input of Bar?",
etc.  (I've been told that this is quite common, and has happened in
multiple nomcom's.)

If that's "due process", then it implies that the Nomcom is supposed
to know all of the issues and where some of the personality conflicts
might have been hidden --- and the IETF has gotten big enough that you
can't guarantee that ten randomly selected people will have
necessarily witnessed all of the random cat fights that might have
happened in some area.

So if we're not going to "make public" the list of the names, is it
O.K. for nomcom to send send queiries (possibly with a semi-blinded
list, but realistically that only goes so far to hide the list of
people that they're interested in), and sending it to all working
group chairs and all people who have written an internet-draft in said
area?  I've heard a few people say that this is O.K., but in my mind,
I **really** can't see the difference between that and making the name
public.  The difference seems to be quite marginal --- and it is
significantly much more work that you're putting on nomcom's shoulders
(who doesn't have secretarial support, and has to deal with random
things like e-mail addresses breaking when @home or AT&T/Mediaone
suddenly breaks thousands and thousands of e-mail addresses with
little or no notice).

On the other hand, if people seem to think that a query to large
number of people is O.K. (but somehow putting the list on a website is
not), I guess I wouldn't have a problem with that as long as Nomcom
got some secretarial help to actually find and contact all of these
people.  

(This by the way is a problem not just when trying to find people to
contact for input, but also when trying to contact people who have
been nominated by their peers for some IAB or IESG position.  This
time around there was probably at least one or two people for which we
never were able to find an e-mail address, so they never got contacted
and asked if they were willing to participate in the process.  Hint:
when nominating people, give nomcom their e-mail address.  I spent a
very large amount of my time trying to track down people's
e-mail/contact information, and that's just stupid.)

							- Ted

---

From: Geoff Huston <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2002 06:59:00 +1000

>etc.  (I've been told that this is quite common, and has happened in

Drawing on my experience on both sides of the role (member of Nomcom  and 
member of the confirming body, some of the reasons why some Nomcoms receive 
such a level of detailed query is the manner in which the Nomcom reports to 
the confirming body.

The confirming body may have been expecting a description of how the Nomcom 
arrived at its slate of nominees in terms of the qualifications they were 
seeking and the attributes of the nominees which the Nomcom felt 
represented a superior choice for the
benefit of the IETF. Some Nomcoms have elected to provide a list of names, 
others have added to this list of names a form of CV. In both cases there 
is the expectation that the confirming body will fill in the blanks. I 
suspect that in such cases the Nomcom gets to be on the receiving end of a 
rigorous set of rounds of detailed questions about the procedures used to 
reach particular conclusions, and rightly so. My experience has tended to 
indicate that the more the Nomcom is able to illustrate its thinking and 
processes used to reach conclusions in its report to the confirming bodies, 
the easier the confirming body's task in terms of ensuring, to their level 
of confidence, that confirmation of the slate is the responsible action.

    Geoff

---

From: Robert Elz <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2002 15:57:11 +0700

Date:        Wed, 10 Apr 2002 14:10:48 -0400
    From:        Theodore Tso <[email-masked]>
    Message-ID:  <[email-masked]>

  | So if we're not going to "make public" the list of the names, is it
  | O.K. for nomcom to send send queiries (possibly with a semi-blinded
  | list, [...]

  | I've heard a few people say that this is O.K., but in my mind,
  | I **really** can't see the difference between that and making the name
  | public.  The difference seems to be quite marginal

You're looking at it from the wrong point of view, and assuming that
the opposition to making the list public is because of a demand for
extreme secrecy of the names being considered.

From my point of view anyway, it wasn't - as someone said, people who
consent to be considered know (or should) that they're going to be
talked about, and if they're actually appointed, then they are going
to get a lot more exposure.

The issue was the requirement that the nomcom make some list or other
(which was never really decided) public, for some perceived benefit
that would gain.   That's where the problems arise - that is, it isn't
that someone's name might be known as being considered for some position
or other, but that there's no practical way to require disclosure of the
names that actually achieves anything useful without unduly hamstringing
the nomcom.

  | Hint: when nominating people, give nomcom their e-mail address.

You mean people don't?   I guess they don't know or you could have just
asked the nominator rather than hunting - that is, something in the line
of "I've seen the way X works in the xxx WG, and I think X would make
a great AD, but that's all I know about X")

Maybe nomcoms (or this perhaps to be formed WG even) should give some
guidance in the form of a list of info to provide wherever possible
when someone is being nominated?

kre