Subject: publish which list of nominees?

From: Harald Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 01 Apr 2002 14:38:13 +0200

[apologies for forking this thread....]

--On fredag, mars 29, 2002 12:56:27 -0500 James M Galvin 
<[email-masked]> wrote:

> SPEAKING AS EDITOR:
>
> Of the 6 people who I believe expressed a specific opinion about whether
> or not to publish the list of nominees there were 4 in favor and 2
> against.

Agree that when 300 people in the Minneapolis think that some list should 
be published no matter what, and 500 people think the topic warrants 
further discussion, thinking that the topic is exhausted after 6 speakers 
is not a Good Idea. But that's water under the bridge.

>
> From this summary I would propose the following:
>
>     PROPOSED CONSENSUS: We should publish the list of nominees and
>     continue to update the list throughout the NOMCOM process.
>
> If you disagree with this proposal please reply to the list.

Satisfying the formality: Disagree.

Reason for disagreeing is not that the conclusion is wrong (it might be 
right), but that it is impossible to tell what the conclusion is.

------------ Beginning of analytical section -------------

Let's create a theoretical model of a nomcom's consideration of candidates 
for a position.

In THEORY, it goes like this:

- The nomcom has an "active" list, which starts out with the current 
incumbent, and a "rejected" list, which starts out empty.
The purpose of the nomcom process is to get a single name on the "active" 
list.

1 - Nominations from outside get added to the "active" list - primarily 
early in the game, but it can occur at later times.
2 - Nominations from inside the nomcom get added to the "active" list
3 - Nominations move from the "active" to the "rejected" list by several 
ways:
  a - The candidate refuses to be considered
  b - The nomcom finds the candidate unsuitable
      Reasons may include being considered for another position...
4 - At the end, the nomcom picks a single candidate off the "active" list
  and moves the rest to the "rejected" list.

Consider the various lists that can be published:

A - All that comes in from (1)
B - All that comes in from (1) and (2)
C - All that comes in from (1) and (2), minus (3a)
  (also C2 - all nominees that have explicitly said they are willing)
D - All that comes in from (1) and (2), minus (3a) and (3b)

Also, the list can be published:

- Once, relatively early in the process
- Once, relatively late in the process
- Multiple times during the process

Advantages of publication:
- The community knows which candidates are nominated, and can provide 
relevant feedback or nominate additional candidates.

Disadvantages mentioned WILL vary according to the scheme chosen:

List A, as well as any "once, early" publication means that the nomcom may 
"surprise" the community by choosing someone not on the list.

"once, late" publication of any list will give the community a very short 
time in which to give feedback, and will thus add little value to the 
process.

List A or B will have lots of irrelevant names on them, including names 
that do not want to be considered. This gives irrelevant feedback to 
Nomcom, as well as creating "noise" for people who do not want to 
participate.

List C is an excellent basis for a "beauty contest" or "campaigning".

List D will give a clear indication of what the nomcom is thinking.

If published multiple times, the community will definitely read not only 
the list itself, but the way in which it changes.

List A and B are growing lists. They reveal something about the community, 
but little about the evaluation process of the nomcom.

List C (non-refused nominations) is a list that may both expand and 
contract.
It reveals something more - if people appear, disappear and then reappear, 
it is clear that someone is twisting arms. If people pop up late, it is 
probable that they are "headhunted" by nomcom, which tells you something 
about nomcom's evaluation of the other candidates.

List C2 (accepted nominations) is also a list that may expand and contract. 
But it grows later than list C2 - and the result of nomcom "headhunting" 
will be even easier to detect here.

List D essentially is a running view of the thought processes of nomcom. I 
think it would reveal a lot about the opinions the people on nomcom have of 
the candidates - both the chosen ones and the not-chosen ones.

----------- End of analysis section, start of opinion -----------------

I think that publishing once is not a service to the community that is 
worth the consequences. At best, it is of limited value; at worst, it is 
misleading. So I think any publication process needs to be relatively 
continuous (on the order of once a week or so).

I think that publishing list D is breaking confidentiality entirely too 
much, and we should discard that option.

I think that alternatives C and C2 are superficially attractive (this is 
how most other organizations with a nomination/acceptance/choice process 
run themselves). But in the particular context of finding a management team 
for the IETF, I think there is still too much information that comes out 
about how the nomcom or the candidates change their minds during the 
process.

I don't think publishing list B (all candidates that have been suggested) 
is very harmful to the community. It tells you something about the INPUT to 
the nomcom, not the process by which the nomcom arrived at a decision.

And it does answer the quite solidly voiced opinion of the Minneapolis 
crowd that they wanted more information about the nomcom process.

                       Harald

---

From: Theodore Tso <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 01 Apr 2002 09:44:43 -0500

> List C is an excellent basis for a "beauty contest" or "campaigning".

OK, people keep using the terms "popularity contest" and
"campainging".  I'd like to request that someone who seriously
believes this to define precisely what they mean by this, and why they
don't believe (a) the nomcom won't be able to detect and filter out
"popularity contests", and (b) why they believe anything we do can
prevent (or encourage) popularity contests.

First of all, right now, please note that the confidentiality
constraints in RFC 2727 constrain only the nomcom and the confirming
bodies.  (Although as a side note it does *not* specify what
information nomcom is allowed to share with the confirming bodies when
they start asking questions; that's left very ambiguous at the moment.
But that's a topic for another day.)

Hence, someone who is a candidate is free to let everyone and their
brother know they are running.  There are currently cultural
constraints which prevent this from being much of a problem, but it
does happen from time to time --- and it's not a problem.  Without
violating the nomcom confidentiality rules, I believe it is fair to
say that we received messages from a candidate's colleagues which made
it very clear they knew so-and-so was running, and that he was a Good
Choice.  So to the extent that explicit campainging happens, that can
happen today, reguardless of whether or not we publish lists.

Also, I can't speak for all of the nomcom, but quite frankly, I tend
to discount and completely ignore comments along the line of
"so-and-so is a good candidate", "a good guy", or (as an example of a
useless negative comment) "You must be kidding!".

So in order to be useful, the comments have to give detailed
information about a candidate, and examples of how they have (or have
not) demonstrated good management/leadership skills, etc.  Once we
posit this bar, then getting duplicate comments isn't particularly
important, and can be relatively easily filtered out.  So maybe I'm
being naive, but I honestly don't see why people are so concerned
about the possibility of campaigning.  Personally, I just don't see
this as a problem.

> will be even easier to detect here.

I would suggest list C2, with the proviso that the list not contract.
(i.e., a name doesn't appear on the list until the person has accepted
the nomination, and once a name appears on the list, it is never
removed.)  

This is a smaller list, which is important from the point of view of
reducing noise.  This is important, because in order for the comments
to be useful, they need to be detailed.  If we make the list too long,
then we deny the nomcom of useful input.

As far as the concern about leaking information about the nomcom
"headhunting", there really is no way of doing that.  Even if we use
list B, realistically the nomcom stops getting outside nominations
after the beginning of January.  So any new names which appear on List
B can just as certainly be taken as "nomcom headhunting".  So, there's
no real value to additional noise List B would have.

Ultimately, the tradeoff here is between establishing some
arbitrary cut-off after which point the list stops getting updated
(which means that nomcom won't get community input on late-breaking
candidates), and revealing information that the nomcom is in
headhunting mode, presumably because that would say something about
how nomcom felt about the other candidates.  

However, once you publish a list at all, if nomcom ends up selecting
another candidate, the information that nomcom decided that the
submitted names were not suitable is going to come out anyway, so
there's no real point trying to hide that fact.  

Secondly, it's just as possible that the reason why the nomcom needed
to go headhunting is because a candidate accepted, but then later
discovers that he/she doesn't have management approval for the 30
hour/weekc commitment.  So there are in fact many reasons why the
nomcom might need to go into headhunting mode, and so you can't infer
that much information the fact that nomcom was headhunting in any
case.

						- Ted

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 01 Apr 2002 11:48:50 -0500

--On Monday, 01 April, 2002 09:44 -0500 Theodore Tso
<[email-masked]> wrote:

>...
> Secondly, it's just as possible that the reason why the nomcom
> needed to go headhunting is because a candidate accepted, but
> then later discovers that he/she doesn't have management
> approval for the 30 hour/weekc commitment.  So there are in
> fact many reasons why the nomcom might need to go into
> headhunting mode, and so you can't infer that much information
> the fact that nomcom was headhunting in any case.

Ted,

Having never been on a nomcom, this is just idle speculation,
but I would assume that, even with reasonable candidates in
front of it, a nomcom might well do a certain amount of
"headhunting" out of ordinary due dilligence.  As just a
superficial example, I have been asked in interviews (although
not, if I recall, this year) to identify the person who I
thought would be the absolutely best for a particular position
if he or she could be talked into it (without disclosing whether
the nomcom was already looking at that individual).  Similarly,
I've been asked if I could identify the most likely
up-and-coming people in a particular area for future
consideration.

If a nomcom chooses to ask those sorts of questions, and a few
names come up many times, I would expect the nomcom to try to
recruit those people onto the list of people to be considered,
even if they had not been formally/externally suggested as
candidates and even if the pool already included people who
seemed to be satisfactory.

If that reasoning is correct, the late addition of a name to the
list does not imply anything at all about presumed deficiencies
in the people added to the list earlier.

     john

---

From: Theodore Tso <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 02 Apr 2002 12:47:04 -0500

> in the people added to the list earlier.

All very true, although this tends to happen much earlier in the
process.  It doesn't tend to happen very late in the process; so if
new names were to appear on the list in late January or early
February, that would leak a certain amount of information about the
process.  I personally believe that the benefits make this tradeoff
worthwhile, but I do have to acknowledge his downside does exist.
(But it can mean many things, and not just that the nomcom has
negative evaluations of all of the people under consideraton.)

						- Ted

---

From: avri <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 02 Apr 2002 20:00:40 +0200

A data point;

In several of the NomComs i was involved with, the 
recruitment effort on some positions went on almost until 
the very end of the decsion process.  And although in most 
cases folks said no, there were exceptions.

a.

Theodore Tso wrote:

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

-- 
Avri Doria

Institute for System Technology   Mobile: +46 73 029 8019 

Lulea University of Technology    Office: +46 920 49 3030 

SE 971-87 Lulea                   In US:  +1 401 663 5024
Sweden                            [email-masked]

---

From: Allison Mankin <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 02 Apr 2002 17:37:55 -0500

Ted,

> February, that would leak a certain amount of information about the 

I think you should be cautious about generalizing about when
recruiting might occur during a nomcom process.  I believe,
from a liaison experience the year before this, and from some other
interactions with past nomcoms, that this could vary considerably.

Allison

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 03 Apr 2002 15:55:30 +0200

Jim,

I'd modify it to say "publish the list one or more times until TBD days
before the IETF meeting, and close nominations on that date."

But as Harald said we don't really have widespread input on this.

   Brian

James M Galvin wrote:
> The principal argument in favor is that it opens the door for greater
> community input.  A NOMCOM can reasonably expect to get input suggesting
> nominees and comments about incumbents, but if the community does not
> know who is being considered it is problematic for the community to
> offer comments (primarily negative comments one would assume) about
> nominees.  The NOMCOM only gets input from those it asks.
> 
> Another argument in favor is that the NOMCOM essentially publishes the
> list of nominees anyway if it, for example, sends a note to the wgchairs
> mailing list and asks for comments.
> 
> Finally, it was also suggested that publishing the list relieves some of
> the burden on the confirming body to ever have to say "no" to one or
> more candidates.
> 
> I noted two arguments against publishing the list.  Primarily there is
> the issue of timing.  New nominees are added throughout the NOMCOM
> process so it would be necessary to update the list of nominees on some
> regular basis.  There is concern that this is unnecessary overhead of
> the process and that this might give too much insight into the
> confidential workings of the NOMCOM.
> 
> It was also suggested that publishing the list does not relieve the
> burden on the confirming bodies to have to say "no" from time to time.
> 
> If you disagree with this summary or believe I have missed any
> additional information please reply to the list.
> 
> If you disagree with this proposal please reply to the list.  If you
> agree do nothing.  Note that a later message will propose actual and
> specific textual changes to the document.
> 
> Jim
>

---

From: Theodore Tso <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 03 Apr 2002 12:38:24 -0500

> interactions with past nomcoms, that this could vary considerably.

Recruiting that occur at any point in the process, to be sure, and for
multiple reasons.  I've said as much.  

However, towards the end of the process, the fact that recuiting is
taking place does a leak some information; not a lot, but still,
probably enough to at least start the rumor mill.  :-)

						- Ted