Subject: Re: DISCUSSION: rejecting candidates

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 05 May 2002 10:34:53 -0700

At 08:28 AM 4/24/2002 +0200, Harald Alvestrand wrote:
>As Dave Crocker mentioned earlier, we have a selection process with no 
>loonie filter - anyone who can stand showing up for 2 IETFs is eligible.

True, we have no loonie filter on nomcom membership.  We do have a solid, 
post-hoc loonie filter on nomcom output.  (One could argue that, in fact, 
that is ALL the post-hoc review is appropriate for, in terms of practical 
effect.)  We also have good loonie monitoring capabilities, given the 
number of ex-officio participants in nomcom.

What we do NOT have is a way of correcting a nomcom dominated by loonies, 
especially before there is any useful output.  Making it possible to 
correct this earlier would be worth considering.

Suggestion:

         Offhand, all I can think of, within the current context,
         is to enable some portion of the ex-officios to raise a
         concern with the two confirming bodies and then empower the
         confirming bodies to be able to conduct an independent review,
         with authority disband a nomcom and start over.

This would have a massive social effect in the IETF but, then, it should.

Anything we can do to catch and respond to fundamental problems earlier in 
any IETF process is a very good thing.

At 01:43 PM 4/21/2002 -0400, Rob Austein wrote:
>At any rate: let's consider a hypothetical case in which the
>confirming body has detected what it thinks is a process problem in
>the nomcom and has not been able to get enough cooperation from the
>nomcom to address its concerns about the process in a timely manner.
>...
>a) Reject the nomcom output and trigger a constitutional crisis;
>b) Blindly accept the nomcom output even though the process that
>    produced it appears to have been flawed;
>c) Attempt to confirm independently that the nomcom's output is
>    acceptable in spite of whatever flaws you think you've detected in
>    the process that produced it.

Given the conditions that you described in the first paragraph, I think it 
pretty clear that the  situation would constitute a basic crisis about the 
nomcom.  No mechanism we might provide would make it more pleasant or less 
traumatic.

A nomcom that is fundamentally unconstructive in its dialogue with a 
confirming body is a nomcom that is fundamentally running rogue.

This is different from saying that the nomcom must automatically do 
whatever a confirming body requests or demands.  The specifics of dealing 
with such a situation hinge on the reality behind "not been able to get 
enough cooperation".  Perhaps the nomcom is being unreasonable.  Perhaps 
the confirming body is being unreasonable.  Either way, it is nothing less 
than a constitutional crisis.

>I gather that you may think the confirming body
>should not have option (c).

My own experience is that the confirming bodies do not currently attempt 
(c), and my point, earlier is that I believe the confirming body cannot 
should not attempt to, because they cannot replicate the depth or range of 
interviews and deliberations that brought a nomcom to a particular set of 
choices.  So the bottom line is that (c) is an inherently unproductive 
alternative.

However the confirming body can -- and must -- require that the nomcom make 
its case for the questionable choice(s) and the case must reflect informed 
and fair deliberation.

At 06:47 PM 4/23/2002 -0400, John C Klensin wrote:
>>--On Thursday, 18 April, 2002 20:39 +0200 Harald Alvestrand wrote:
> > Scenario 1:
> > Nomcom makes a selection. The confirming body has information
> > which, in its opinion, makes the candidate obviously unsuited
> > for the job, and which it thinks that the nomcom cannot
> > possibly have considered.
>
>The scenario: Nomcom makes a selection.  The confirming body
>considers it and decides that, while the candidate would be fine
>if viewed in isolation, there are compelling reasons why the
>appointment is unsuitable and, to quote your scenario 1, "which
>it thinks that the nomcom cannot possibly have considered".

How is this new scenario different from Harald's Scenario 1?

(By the way, my sense is that both of the examples John provided are, in 
fact, considered by nomcoms and the extensive set of reviews conducted by 
nomcom seem to be pretty good at uncovering the presence of these factors 
for individual candidates.)

>At 09:36 AM 4/22/2002 +0200, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>No it isn't. The real and current problem is that whenever a choice made by
>NomCom looks strange to the confirming body, the latter is forced to ask
>questions about details of NomCom process in order to evaluate its depth and
>thoroughness.

As I thought was clear from my earlier postings, this is not a 
"problem".  Rather it is an entirely reasonable and appropriate scenario.

When the nomcom does something unusual, it is the job of the confirming 
body to review the basis and make sure that the nomcom appreciates that the 
action is unusual and that it was the result of an informed and reasoned 
consideration process.

>  In more than one year, this has resulted in the NomCom contacting
>more people and obtaining more input, which suggests that the confirming
>bodies had something valid to worry about.

Maybe yes, maybe no.  Additional interviews at the behest of the confirming 
body show that the nomcom wants to be responsive to the pressures of the 
confirming body.  It does not show that the nomcom actually lacked 
information.  What might show such a deficiency would be the nomcom's 
changing its selection after doing the extra set of interviews.

(The two nomcoms I have been on did extensive initial interviews and 
push-back from a confirming body caused some more interviews.  The 
interviews caused delay but did not add any information to the mix, and did 
not cause a change in selections, because the original set of interviews 
had already been quite extensive.)

d/

----------
Dave Crocker  <mailto:[email-masked]>
Brandenburg InternetWorking  <http://www.brandenburg.com>
tel +1.408.246.8253;  fax +1.408.850.1850