Subject: Re: What is the problem [was Re: SUMMARY: publish list of nominees?]

From: Matt Holdrege <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 02 Apr 2002 08:20:56 -0800

At 06:12 PM 3/30/2002, Leslie Daigle wrote:
>Marshall,
>
>I illustrated my concerns in terms of the actions of the most
>recent NomCom, but I was trying to describe the general problem
>that NomComs are increasingly challenged by the task of identifying
>representative and broad-based sources of input.
>
>In that light, I don't think it's _fair_ to just ask the
>next NomCom to 'do something different'.  A year from now,
>we'll be complaining they didn't ask _enough_ people for
>input.  Or some other issue.
>
>If not an open nominee list, and not a tortured set of
>rules, can we as a community not come up with some more
>helpful guidelines -- for the future NomComs, or for the
>IETF community interfacing with them?

Yes! All the nomcom's need is a little guidance. These people are grown-ups 
and they are really not susceptible to popularity campaigns. In fact, most 
IETF'ers look at such things with a jaundiced eye. This year's nomcom 
simply did what they thought was the right thing. We had guidance from our 
chair and our liaisons, but we still chose our own course.

I'm of the opinion that we don't need to change any rules. But a few more 
words of guidance in RFC 2727 might be helpful for future nomcom's.

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 03 Apr 2002 16:02:45 +0200

Marshall Rose wrote:
...
> just because some
> folks feel that this year's nomcom didn't handle it as well as they might have

Just to be clear: I didn't launch this idea because of this year's NomCom. I launched
it now because I have just left the IAB and have no axes to grind any more; but
it's a result of a number of years observing and participating in the
approval process.

   Brian

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 03 Apr 2002 16:11:03 +0200

Scott Brim wrote:
> 
> > From: "Marshall Rose" <[email-masked]>
> > Sent: Sunday, March 31, 2002 5:05 PM
> 
> > you seem to equate adult supervision with being in charge. it isn't.
> > it's considerably more subtle and valuable. (of course, one of the
> > ex-officio's is the chair of the nomcom.)
> >
> > the idea behind having the four there is that you have another set of
> > checks and balances between the different organizations and personnel.
> > (in addition, of course, to having folks there who can answer
> > questions about how the bodies operate and provide pointers to lots of
> > resources...
> >
> > so, i'm back to "no change is needed".
> 
> If we could give the ex officio members the responsibility of keeping the
> process superb, in writing, that might be all we need.

It would certainly be good to add that to the rules.

But the ultimate judgement on process, implicitly at least, is made by the
approving bodies. So there is at least one bug (no ISOC Board liaison
to NomCom) even if we go that way. However, the underlying point is

- some say that exposing the list to the entire IETF will materially
  improve the information that NomCom gets, and therefore improve
  public confidence in the process

- others say that this isn't the case and that it will decrease the quality
  of the information and NomCom's ability to form a proper judgement

      Brian

---

From: Scott Brim <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 03 Apr 2002 09:19:30 -0500

On Wed, Apr 03, 2002 04:11:03PM +0200, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> But the ultimate judgement on process, implicitly at least, is made by
> the approving bodies. So there is at least one bug (no ISOC Board
> liaison to NomCom) even if we go that way. However, the underlying
> point is

I don't think it's a bug that the ultimate judgement belongs to the
approving bodies.  If the process is superb, and they still disagree,
then they should say so, because something will already be broken.

> improve the information that NomCom gets, and therefore improve public
> confidence in the process
> 
> - others say that this isn't the case and that it will decrease the
> quality of the information and NomCom's ability to form a proper
> judgement

I trust the NomCom to discriminate as well as they do now :-).  That is,
the process will be no worse.  My only goal in exposing information
(which, let's keep in mind, is just a tool, not a goal) is to motivate
keeping the process high quality.

..Scott

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 04 Apr 2002 09:56:34 +0200

one clarification...

> then they should say so, because something will already be broken.

Agree. The bug I meant was the absence of ISOC->NOMCOM liaison; it means
that the ISOC Board has no direct source of information about the process
followed within the NomCom.
> keeping the process high quality.

Exactly.

   Brian

---

From: Randy Bush <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 04 Apr 2002 10:04:18 +0200

> you seem to equate adult supervision with being in charge.

many folk who have not raised teenagers have this confusion :-)/2

> checks and balances between the different organizations and personnel.

imiho, probably the most valuable contribution iab and iesg liaisons can
make is to give the nomcom input on the internal chemistry of the iab and
iesg to assist the nomcom in building 'management teams' that will work well
as teams.

randy

---

From: Donald Eastlake 3rd <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2002 09:08:12 -0400 (EDT)

While there would be nothing wrong, in my view, to adding something
explicit about the liaisons "advising" the nomcom, the system is
deliberately designed to give the most authority to the IETF community
through the voting members.
	Given that people and people's judgements of people are
involved, I do not think it is possible to ever run the nomcom so that
everyone would agree that the process was "superb"ly executed.
	Giving liaiasons a clear voice seems fine, giving liaisons more
authority just takes away authority from the IETF community and takes
another step, if a small one, back towards making the governing bodies
self-perpetuating as the IAB was before the nomcom scheme was adopted.

Donald

 On Sun, 31 Mar 2002, Scott Brim wrote:

> Date: Sun, 31 Mar 2002 17:14:09 -0500
> From: Scott Brim <[email-masked]>
> To: Marshall Rose <[email-masked]>,
>      Joel M. Halpern <[email-masked]>
> Cc: [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: What is the problem [was Re: SUMMARY: publish list of
>     nominees?]
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription
> manager: <http://lists.elistx.com/subscribe>
>

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2002 17:35:25 +0200

I think we were talking about using the liaisons as *witnesses* to
the process rather than intervening. Obviously they act as a communications
channel anyway, as a matter of definition.

   Brian

---

From: Scott Brim <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2002 12:05:16 -0400

On Wed, Apr 10, 2002 05:35:25PM +0200, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> I think we were talking about using the liaisons as *witnesses* to the
> process rather than intervening. Obviously they act as a
> communications channel anyway, as a matter of definition.

More than that.  Their feedback and interaction is part of the process.
If the process isn't going right and they say nothing, they don't offer
any increased avoidance of the nuclear alternatives.

..Scott

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2002 18:19:36 +0200

> any increased avoidance of the nuclear alternatives.

OK, witnesses and early warning devices. 

   Brian