Subject: Staus of the Nomcom WG

From: Avri Doria <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2003 13:41:17 -0500

Hi,

Since we are not holding a meeting this time, it seemed a
good idea to send the group my perception of our status.

I think we are close to the time for a WG last call.  I
certainly want to make sure we are totally finished before
a new Nomcom is chosen.

Recently draft-ietf-nomcom-rfc2727bis-03.txt was put out.
In addition to several minor errors which are currently
being corrected, there were two larger issues:

1. Whether the prohibition for voting members of
NomCom from being selected to serve on the IAB/IESG was now
lengthened to 2 years because of the provision that requires a
NomCom to sit longer then 12 months if there is a need to
fill a late season interim vacancy.
The consensus, as I understood it, is that this should
not be the case, and that text should be added to clarify
that the prohibition was only for selections made by the
NomCom in which a person is a voting member; i.e. 1 year.

2. Whether the occasional practice of giving incumbents
performance  feedback that is obtained incidentally
during interviews, should be formalized in any way.

A inconclusive discussion on this came up in the design
team.  There is nothing in 2727 which either permits this
or prohibits this as long as confidentiality is maintained.

Tradition and 2727 has left such decisions to the NomCom
itself.  This may mean that such feedback is either not
passed on or has marginal value when it is.  It is
also possible that in some cases, the nature of the feedback
may betray the source and this threatens confidentiality. Also
if such a practice where formalized it might change the amount
and quality of feedback; whether for better or worse.

I see several  paths we can follow in dealing with this issue:

A- Decide that the status quo achieves the right balance and
leave things as they are.  This is the default condition if
there is not strong consensus for change.

B- Decide that this feedback is important but in keeping with
the tradition of leaving as much up to the individual NomCom as
possible add a statement on this to the oral traditions.

C- Decide that this feedback is critical and deserves a rule
requiring it.

D- Decide that this practice is a risk to confidentiality
or negative in some other way and that it should be discouraged
in the oral traditions.

E- Decide that this practice is a threat to confidentiality
or negative in some other way and that it should be forbidden
by the rules.

I am asking the participants in this group to send in their
comments on this issue.  I request that you pick one of the
options and give reasons.  Of course, if there are other options
you can speak of them as well.

Supporters of options B-E are encouraged to suggest wording.

Finally if there are other open issues in -03 that have not been
discussed or other open issues I have lost track of,
please speak up.

I strongly encourage folks to read the current draft and send
in your comments.  As I said, I hope to be able to start the WG
last call right after -04 is released shortly after IETF56.

Thanks,
a.

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2003 11:22:46 +0100

in line...

> NomCom in which a person is a voting member; i.e. 1 year.

I think that's right.

> there is not strong consensus for change.

Would be acceptable.

> possible add a statement on this to the oral traditions.

I think this is slightly better - make it plain that the NomCom
is entitled to give such feedback, but not obliged.

> C- Decide that this feedback is critical and deserves a rule

No. We are not running a personnel system here.

> or negative in some other way and that it should be discouraged

No. There is no special threat to confidentiality, and most 
people welcome feedback.

> or negative in some other way and that it should be forbidden

No (same reasons).
   
   Brian

---

From: Mark Allman <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2003 11:52:22 -0500

> No. We are not running a personnel system here.

Actually, we sort of are.

I'd tweak the above option a bit to not require it, but require it
if an incumbant who is re-upping requests it.  With all the
grumbling that is going on about the IESG it seems short-sighted to
just toss the collected information.

Having said that I'd tightly scope this so that the nomcom is only
responsible for producing one email message per incumbant that
sketches the feedback it receives (in an anonymous way).  That is, I
don't want to see this be a conversation or formal review.  Rather,
it should be fairly lightweight on nomcom and provide a sense of the
input that nomcom has gathered to help the incumbant understand any
performance problems percieved by the community.

(Of course, if a particular nomcom feels strongly that they don't
really want to give this feedback then they can always game things
by giving no-op sorts of review information back.)

allman

--
Mark Allman -- BBN/NASA GRC -- http://roland.grc.nasa.gov/~mallman/