Subject: re: SUMMARY: publish list of nominees?

From: Schliesser, Benson <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 01 Apr 2002 11:10:39 -0600

> PROPOSED CONSENSUS: We should publish the list of nominees and
> continue to update the list throughout the NOMCOM process.

I agree with part of this 'proposed consensus'. Specifically, I agree that
the list should be published. However, I disagree that it should be updated.
In order to strike a balance between privacy concerns and transparency, as
well as to foster input from the IETF community, I believe that the list
should be published only once.

My proposal: The list of nominees should be generated after a nomination
cut-off date. The nominees themselves must confirm their nomination by
signing a legal waiver (contents to be determined, but in any case
protecting the nomcom and IETF against legal concerns related to the
selection process). After a response/waiver cut-off date, the resultant list
of confirmed nominees should be published in a request for input from the
IETF community. The nomcom should then use community input, etc., to choose
a candidate to be presented at least 30 days before the beginning of the
term. The confirming body must then respond to the nomcom within 10 days
with a confirmation or a rejection. A rejection must be accompanied by an
explanation of cause. If a candidate is rejected, the nomcom should submit
new candidates or re-submit previously rejected candidates until the end of
the 30 day period (the confirming body must confirm or reject any
outstanding nominated candidate on the 30th day), at which time an exception
method such as a popular vote should solve the vacancy.

-Benson

---

From: Robert Elz <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 02 Apr 2002 18:58:26 +0700

I would like to take this discussion into a slightly different
direction.

The apparent intent of publishing this list is so the nomcom can get
community feedback on its proposed or possible nominations (depending
upon at exactly what time, and what list, were to be published).

I believe that's not a desirable aim - that is, what people are attempting
to achieve is broken in the first place, so that any mechanism to achieve
it is inappropriate.

While it isn't wrong (and very likely is good) for the nomcom to attempt
to obtain some input on the various nominees, by asking around a bit,
the right way for the nomcom to collect information is for the community
to provide it, unasked.

If we, the community, aren't providing the nomcom with the information
they need to do their work, then we really have no right at all to complain
about the results of their work.

The right way for all of this to be done, is that if you (as a member of
the community) feel that person X would make a good Y, then you ask X if
they'd be interested (just as a courtesy, and to save everyone unnecessary
work), and then if they say yes, or even perhaps, you send a message to the
nomcom and suggest that X should be made a Y.   Then the nomcom can take
the set of X's they are given, get rid of any they consider hopeless
(based upon other feedback, etc), ask whatever is left if they'd be
willing to be considered, do some arm twisting to convince some of them
they they really should allow themselves to be considered, and then set
out making a decision based upon what they have been told in the various
messages from all the different people who thought X would be a good choice,
and any other input they may have been able to collect from the people they
do decide to talk to.

There's no reason that any of the rest of us should know that X is being
considered, if we didn't send in any input, then hard luck, if we did
make some suggestions, then our input will already be being considered.

As to making sure the process is followed - that exactly the kind of thing
that the liaisons should be doing, and reporting back that all is happening
properly, or not (usually with no need for details).   Those reports would
of course appear in the minutes of the meetings of the bodies the liaison
represents - so if a liaison believes that things are a bit wonky
that would be public info fairly quickly.

While I'm ranting about nomcom practices let me also say that I don't
much like the practice of the nomcom sedning out questionaires to
nominees, in which they ask the nominee to explain why they'd be a
good person to be appointed, etc.    We don't need to be getting
people to tell the nomcom all their good points, and why they're
perfect for the job - that should come from those who suggest them
(other than in the case of a self-nomination of course, but that just
falls out of the method).   Asking whether the nominee has the time,
resources, etc, and even (perhaps) what they'd like to do in the role
is OK, but I don't believe the nomcom should be soliciting self praise.

kre

---

From: Theodore Tso <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 02 Apr 2002 10:36:02 -0500

> and any other input they may have been able to collect from the people they

The problem with this is that nomcom may not necessary hear about why
X may be a bad choice.  

For example, suppose we have a case where X has managed to antagonise
50% of the working group chairs in a particular area, but the other
25% of the working group chairs thing that X is wonderful, and nomcom
gets glowing, positive reviews about X.  (Assume that 25% have no opinion.)

Now let us assume that the randomly selected nomcom members don't have
much expertise in that particular area, or at least not much
first-hand experience with the recent politics and personality
conflicts in that particular area, so they don't know about these
issues.  How is nomcom supposed to find out?

One approach might be to send out queries to all of the working group
chairs in the area, plus other significant people.  But if you're
going to do that, you come close to making the list public anyway.  So
why not making it public at that point?

Another approach might be to wait until the confirming body gets the
list (and hopefully someone at the confirming body level will know
about the problem about why X shouldn't be selected).  At that point,
the confirming body, since it is not privy to the discussions made at
the nomcom level, can start asking questions of the form: "Did you
consult X?  Did you consult Y?"  But at this point, it's *very* late
in the process, and by the time the slate is submitted to the
confirming body, the selected candidates know this fact, since it's at
this point that we ask them for permission from their management.  So
between the time factor, and the embarassment factor of telling the
selected candidate, "oops, sorry, we changed our minds", by the time
it gets to the confirming body level, it really is very, very, very
difficult to make a change --- even in a case where nomcom were to
find out some significant new information which might have changed the
outcome if they had known it earlier in the process.

So that's why I believe publishing the list is useful.  If the
community doesn't know that nomcom might be considering person X, how
should people who have negative concerns about someone know that they
should be submitting those concerns to nomcom.  In fact, if we only
rely on people who submit candidates to say nice things about them,
I'd argue this is EVEN MORE LIKELY to result in popularity contents!

> is OK, but I don't believe the nomcom should be soliciting self praise.

It's not just asking for the good points, but it's also about trying
to find out information about the candidates philosophy, etc.  That
being said, it is true that if you select only for people who can fill
out questionaires well, you may not end up with people who can
actually do the job well.  So that is a concern.

On the other hand, part of the problem is that the input from the
community is very often not very substantive.  People who currently
submit X for position Y, very often only give a paragraph at most of
explanation.  All other information about candidate X needs to be
actively solicited, either from the candidate him/herself, or from
community members.  

(And again --- free hint to people who are interested in sending
comments to a nomcom.  Details and explanations about why you feel a
particular way is *critical*.  Simply saying "he's a good guy", or
"you must be joking" is not very useful from the point of view of a
nomcom member how is trying to sift through input and trying to
compare multiple candidates.  Even something as short as "doesn't play
well with others", is very hard to evaluate if you don't give
examples.  Some people do take a lot of time and give the nomcom very
thoughtful answers.  But often, nomcom gets little input from the
community unless it is actively solicited, and it is sometimes very
brief and not very useful when we do get that input.)

						- Ted

---

From: Robert Elz <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 03 Apr 2002 23:09:51 +0700

Date:        Tue, 2 Apr 2002 10:36:02 -0500
    From:        Theodore Tso <[email-masked]>
    Message-ID:  <[email-masked]>

  | The problem with this is that nomcom may not necessary hear about why
  | X may be a bad choice.

I had a similar response in private mail, I hope the author of that
message won't object to treating this reply as a reply to them as well
(save me sending more or less the same thing in a private message).

That might perhaps be, though I think the chances are pretty small, even
smaller if the nomcom actually seeks information rather than just collecting
what is volunteered to it.

  | For example, suppose we have a case where X has managed to antagonise
  | 50% of the working group chairs in a particular area,

This is not necessarily a bad thing... (but leave that aside for now).

  | One approach might be to send out queries to all of the working group
  | chairs in the area, plus other significant people.

Seems reasonable to me?

  | But if you're
  | going to do that, you come close to making the list public anyway.  So
  | why not making it public at that point?

Only if the query actually mentions names.  It need not.  It can just
remind the people that an AD position in the X area is up for selection,
and ask if there are any people who would be particularly suited to the
job, any people who would be not a good idea to appoint, and a list of
the qualities that are thought to be necessary for someone to be selected
as the relevant AD.

Ideally, those should (at least look like)personal messages - not a form
letter ("To all Ads...") - human nature suggests that you're going to get
better replies if it looks to the recipient as if their opinion is valued
and sought explicitly, rather than they're just one of a crowd that is
being asked.

Further, the message could offer to disclose a list of possible appointees
provided the recipient agrees to keep them confidential, and if the response
requests that list, then send it - the actual nominees being considered, and
a few more (often people who were suggested but declined).

I recall being interviewed about some AD position some years ago where
that was done (don't remember which AD slot, don't recall who the names
were, never did find out which were the ring ins), and thought it a
reasonably effective way.   Provided the person receiving the list has
already agreed to keep it confidential, this is not unreasonable.

  | Another approach might be to wait until the confirming body gets the
  | list

While I have no problem with making it clear that we expect confirming
bodies to occasionally reject people (I was an IAB member during one nomcom
confirmation when that came quite close to being done - but we chickened]
out...), but I don't think it is the right way to operate as the standard
way of working.

On the other hand, members of the IAB would be good people to query about
possible IESG appointments, as members of the IESG would be about possible
IAB appointments (along with chairs, and anyone else the nomcom thinks
could offer useful input - they could even solicit opinions on from where
opinions should be sought).

  | So that's why I believe publishing the list is useful.

Yes, I know why it would be useful - I just feel that the drawbacks
outweigh the benefits.

I also still have yet to see a concrete proposal for exactly how this
would be done.   I know that Brian's "have a closing date for nominations"
is not a satisfactory solutiuon.   Continually updating lists (even without
any deletions) doesn't seem like a good idea to me either.

  | In fact, if we only
  | rely on people who submit candidates to say nice things about them,
  | I'd argue this is EVEN MORE LIKELY to result in popularity contents!

If we did that, then perhaps - but it is hard to believe that the IETF
participants (or those of them I know) are going to be all that
reluctant to also send in negative comments about people who should
not be considered.

[On the questionaire]
  | It's not just asking for the good points, but it's also about trying
  | to find out information about the candidates philosophy, etc.

That part I don't mind.   It was the "why would you make a good AD" type
question (or IAB member) on the questionaire the few times I've seen one.
I think even once "why do you want to be on the ..."

Personally, I have never really wanted to be on any of those, and I have
no intention of saying I do - if the nomcom decided (for some weird reason)
that I would make a good choice, then I see it as their job to convince me,
not my job to convince them.

  | On the other hand, part of the problem is that the input from the
  | community is very often not very substantive.

I certainly have no problem with giving some guidelines to the community
(and perhaps future nomcoms) as to what kind of input is useful, and how
it should be presented.  That certainly sounds like a good idea.

kre

---

From: "Joel M. Halpern" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 03 Apr 2002 11:46:31 -0500

I think that this does not provide for adequate negative feedback.
(Before continuing, I am well aware that someone who has managed to offend 
no-one is probably actually a bad choice.  The nomcom is positioned will to 
evaluate the significance of the negative input.)
Asking active participants for feedback without naming names will:
a) cause to be omitted folks who may not leap to mind but are good choices
b) cause to be omitted from even the most negative feedback information 
about folks who the responder feels are so bad noone would ever be considered
c) cause to be omitted from many peoples responses negative feedback on a 
larger set of "unlikely" people.
I know that when asked for opinions without a list being presented, there 
are far fewer people I will mention as "bad choices" than might appear on a 
list being considered by others.
I have also been asked to express opinion about people who upon 
consideration I thought were good candidates, but would not have mentioned 
without prompting.

In order to get decent feedback, the current procedure stomps on the 
confidentiality line (the committee is doing what it must.  Whether that 
exceeds what we told it is not a debate I want to have.)  This has been 
true for several years.
I think we would be much better served by simply making the list of folks 
who might be being considered public as soon as practical.
Yes, this provides a little bit of public visibility into the internal 
activities of the nomcom.  No, I do not think that is a good result.  BUt I 
think the trade-off is necessary.
Yours,
Joel M. Halpern

---

From: avri <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 03 Apr 2002 18:58:25 +0200

> why not making it public at that point?

this contains a premise that no one has really questioned. 
but i do.

do folks really beleive that making something know to WG 
chairs, ADs, and other 'significant people', is nearly the 
same as making it public?

i tend to beleive that if the NomCom is careful to request 
confidentiality most will keep that information 
confidential.  and even when there are leaks, and i admit 
there alwasy are, these are really nothing more the 
unconfirmed rumors.

a.

---

From: Matt Holdrege <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 03 Apr 2002 12:51:09 -0800

At 08:58 AM 4/3/2002, avri wrote:
>do folks really beleive that making something know to WG chairs, ADs, and 
>other 'significant people', is nearly the same as making it public?
>
>i tend to beleive that if the NomCom is careful to request confidentiality 
>most will keep that information confidential.  and even when there are 
>leaks, and i admit there alwasy are, these are really nothing more the 
>unconfirmed rumors.

Touche! That was the case this year. There will always be unconfirmed 
rumors and no language in an RFC will fix that.

---

From: Geoff Huston <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 04 Apr 2002 16:18:47 +1000

>
>   But at this point, it's *very* late

So what you are saying here, and maybe this is not what you intended to 
assert, is that even if a confirming body fails to confirm a nominated 
candidate, you are of the view that the Nomcom is already locked into that 
particular decision and cannot (or is likely not to) alter its outcome. If 
this is the case then the confirmation system is extraneous and we can do 
without it as it will have no material impact on the outcome. If, on the 
other hand, the confirming body believes that it does have the ability to 
question and review the Nomcom's nomination, and that the confiirming body 
can choose to reject a nomination, then I'm not clear why the rest of your 
argument follows.

(If it isn't obvious, I'm of the view that the confirming bodies are in the 
process for a good purpose, and a rejection of a nomination by a confirming 
body should compel the Nomcom to  review its own process of consultation 
and understand why it had reached a different conclusion than the 
confirming body, and then work to reconcile the differing perspectives 
between the nomcom and the confirming body)

Geoff

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 04 Apr 2002 10:18:38 +0200

Geoff Huston wrote:
...
> between the nomcom and the confirming body)

Absolutely. That's why I'm quite attracted by Ted's idea of stretching the
timescale, to give time for this process to occur without entering panic
mode. Regardless of whether we end up publishing the list, I think this is
desirable.

   brian

---

From: Geoff Huston <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 04 Apr 2002 19:18:08 +1000 (EST)

> mode. Regardless of whether we end up publishing the list, I think this is

I too can see merit in allowing the confirming bodies some time to
undertake their roles with care and attention, and if that implies
stretching the timescale, that may be an acceptable means to allow for
this.

Geoff