Subject: [ietf-nomcom] Ringers / Padding on Nominee list

From: Bernie Hoeneisen <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 3 Apr 2009 08:17:13 +0200 (CEST)

I would like to repeat a statement a made earlier on this list and in the 
plenary: Under certain circumstances it makes sense to add ringers to the 
nominee list. One example is if only one nominee applies for position X 
and adding ringers can trigger more useful feedback on this sole nominee.

However, adding ringers should be the exception, and whether or not to add
ringers should be at the discretion of the NomCom.

Any thoughts on this?

cheers,
  Bernie

---

From: Lars Eggert <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 3 Apr 2009 14:44:14 +0300

Hi,

On 2009-4-3, at 9:17, Bernie Hoeneisen wrote:
> nominee list.

so, I'll take en extreme position: I hate ringers. It takes time to  
write up input to the NomCom via the web form, and I dislike spending  
the effort when it's clearly going to be useless. It also goes  
somewhat counter to the idea of being public with the nominee  
information, because something would be publicized that would be  
dilluted. And you'd need to request the ringers to lie or at least  
refuse an answer when someone asks them "so, are you really running?"

> One example is if only one nominee applies for position X

I don't buy this. How will feedback on people that aren't running give  
you more information about the one that is running? You might hear  
"oh, X is definitely better than Y", but if X is a ringer, what have  
you gained here?

I'd argue that if the list of willing nominees is published  
periodically while the nomination period is open, folks that are  
unhappy with a single candidate will feel a stronger motivation to  
nominate someone (or self-nomiate) than if they see a list of several  
folks, some of whom are ringers.

> ringers should be at the discretion of the NomCom.

If the consensus is to have ringers, absolutely. But I hope that it  
won't be :-)

Lars

---

From: "Spencer Dawkins" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 3 Apr 2009 12:15:12 -0500

Hi, Bernie,

>nominee list. One example is if only one nominee applies for position X and 
>adding ringers can trigger more useful feedback on this sole nominee.
>

I was thinking about this prior to the plenary, so thanks for nudging me a 
couple more times ;-)

OK, so we haven't talked about when/how often a NomCom might publish a 
nominee list publicly (I'm not suggesting that we need to specify much about 
this in the draft, I'm just saying that some people are assuming that 
there's a dance-of-seven-veils where people see the current nominee list and 
can nominate additional folks based on what they are seeing), but let's 
assume that the NomCom decides it's time to publicly announce an initial 
nominee list, and the nomination period is still open.

If that's the case, I'm much more in favor of saying "don't pad the areas 
where you only have one (or two) willing nominees, and see how the community 
reacts to the possibility that there are only one (or two) nominees for that 
slot".

Let's further assume that no additional (willing) nominees surface after the 
initial list is announced, so that there are still areas with only one (or 
two) nominees.

What do we think the NomCom should do, at that point?

I have some opinions, but I'll stop typing now.

Thanks,

Spencer

---

From: "LANGE Andrew" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 3 Apr 2009 12:19:01 -0500

I'm in agreement with Spencer: adding ringers doesn't add much, and can confuse the process, and introduce some additional perception of a shell game. If there are only one or two nominees, this is important information for the people asked to comment as well.  They can certainly say "Oh, definitely don't put Foo up there" or "Please, reopen the call" if they feel the nominees would do harm to the internet. 

I would argue that having a running nominee list publicly posted would be even better.  That way, the community can easily see that there is only one or two nominees, and can nominate additional people.  This will help to prevent the situation from occurring to begin with.

Andrew

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] on behalf of Spencer Dawkins
Sent: Fri 4/3/2009 10:15 AM
To: NomCom Discussion
Subject: Re: [ietf-nomcom] Ringers / Padding on Nominee list
 
Hi, Bernie,

Thanks,

Spencer 

_______________________________________________
ietf-nomcom mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-nomcom

---

From: James M Galvin <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 03 Apr 2009 13:36:40 -0400

I've been thinking about this issue of "when to publish the nominee 
list" and the related "is the nominee list ever closed".

The NOMCOM document never actually says that the nominee list closes. 
It only speaks to the fact that the community needs a minimum amount of 
time to propose nominees.  I think this is important.

What it means to me is that NOMCOM should maintain a public list on a 
web site somewhere of all those people who have agreed to be considered 
for some position.

Thus, there is one check before a name gets on the nominee list: does 
the nominated person (regardless of the source of the nomination) agree 
to be considered?  If the answer is yes then the name gets put on the 
list.  I think the list should amended as soon after a "yes" is 
received as practical.  This applies throughout the NOMCOM process 
until candidates have been confirmed.

The nominee list should not state what position a nominee is a 
candidate for.  This is because this can change.

If somebody changes their mind about being considered I think the name 
should be removed from the list.  Let's just keep it simple, i.e., no 
keeping a list of those that withdrew.

And I do think that anybody who is a nominee needs to be listed.  Thus, 
if the NOMCOM decides it might move someone currently serving on the 
IESG, IAB, or IAOC that is not currently in an open seat, then that 
name needs to be added to the list.  The NOMCOM document currently 
allows for some amount of confidentiality about this move, which if we 
want to continue we will need to allow some "wiggle room" in the phrase 
"the list should be amended as soon after a "yes" is received as 
practical," which I think has plenty of the desired wiggle room.

Jim

-- On April 3, 2009 12:15:12 PM -0500 Spencer Dawkins 
<[email-masked]> wrote regarding Re: [ietf-nomcom] Ringers / 
Padding on Nominee list --

> Hi, Bernie,
>
> > I would like to repeat a statement a made earlier on this list and
> > in the  plenary: Under certain circumstances it makes sense to add
> > ringers to the  nominee list. One example is if only one nominee
> > applies for position X and  adding ringers can trigger more useful
> > feedback on this sole nominee.
> >
> > However, adding ringers should be the exception, and whether or not
> > to add ringers should be at the discretion of the NomCom.
> >
> > Any thoughts on this?
>
> I was thinking about this prior to the plenary, so thanks for nudging
> me a couple more times ;-)
>
> OK, so we haven't talked about when/how often a NomCom might publish
> a nominee list publicly (I'm not suggesting that we need to specify
> much about this in the draft, I'm just saying that some people are
> assuming that there's a dance-of-seven-veils where people see the
> current nominee list and can nominate additional folks based on what
> they are seeing), but let's assume that the NomCom decides it's time
> to publicly announce an initial nominee list, and the nomination
> period is still open.
>
> If that's the case, I'm much more in favor of saying "don't pad the
> areas where you only have one (or two) willing nominees, and see how
> the community reacts to the possibility that there are only one (or
> two) nominees for that slot".
>
> Let's further assume that no additional (willing) nominees surface
> after the initial list is announced, so that there are still areas
> with only one (or two) nominees.
>

---

From: "Joel M. Halpern" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 03 Apr 2009 13:41:52 -0400

I agree that simply keeping the current list of nominees available is 
the simplest and most effective technique.  (THere may be an argument 
for delaying the initial availability of the lsit by a few days, but 
that is a nit.)

I would actually include positions.  Folks are skilled at different 
things, and just as I want to avoid padding the list, I don't want folks 
trying to give the nomcom comments on whether a nominee would be good 
for the IAOC when that is not what they are being considered for.
As with the list of nominees, the list of positions under consideration 
should also be updated as soon as the nomcom or the individual changes 
the list.

There is a drawback to this.  Folks may not want to be seen as offering 
themselves for too many positions.  Remember however that many 
nominations are not self-nominations, so willingness to serve in several 
capacities does not indicate desire or forwardness.
And we should not make public whether or not a nomination is a 
self-nomination.

Yours,
Joel

James M Galvin wrote:
> The NOMCOM document never actually says that the nominee list closes. It 
> only speaks to the fact that the community needs a minimum amount of 
> list.  I think the list should amended as soon after a "yes" is received 
> as practical.  This applies throughout the NOMCOM process until 
> candidates have been confirmed.
> 
> The nominee list should not state what position a nominee is a candidate 
> for.  This is because this can change.
> 
> IESG, IAB, or IAOC that is not currently in an open seat, then that name 
> needs to be added to the list.  The NOMCOM document currently allows for 
> some amount of confidentiality about this move, which if we want to 
> continue we will need to allow some "wiggle room" in the phrase "the 
> list should be amended as soon after a "yes" is received as practical," 
> which I think has plenty of the desired wiggle room.
> 
> Jim
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>

---

From: Danny McPherson <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 3 Apr 2009 14:11:57 -0600

On Apr 3, 2009, at 11:41 AM, Joel M. Halpern wrote:

> I agree that simply keeping the current list of nominees available  
> is the simplest and most effective technique.  (THere may be an  
> argument for delaying the initial availability of the lsit by a few  
> days, but that is a nit.)
>
> things, and just as I want to avoid padding the list, I don't want  
> folks trying to give the nomcom comments on whether a nominee would  
> be good for the IAOC when that is not what they are being considered  
> for.
> As with the list of nominees, the list of positions under  
> consideration should also be updated as soon as the nomcom or the  
> individual changes the list.
>
> There is a drawback to this.  Folks may not want to be seen as  
> offering themselves for too many positions.  Remember however that  
> many nominations are not self-nominations, so willingness to serve  
> in several capacities does not indicate desire or forwardness.
> And we should not make public whether or not a nomination is a self- 
> nomination.

What he said...

-danny

---

From: Lars Eggert <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 4 Apr 2009 13:15:10 +0300

On 2009-4-3, at 20:41, Joel M. Halpern wrote:
> folks

+1

Lars

---

From: Barry Leiba <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 4 Apr 2009 10:43:17 -0400

I completely agree with Joel.  And I'll add, in response to Bernie's
comment about padding the list when there are too few nominees, that
it can have the opposite effect to what we want: people who like the
"ringers" might decide they don't need to volunteer, because there
appear to be enough good candidates.

Barry

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 05 Apr 2009 11:14:55 +1200

+1

Add to that, firm dates for

a) initial publication of the list
b) a real final deadline for nominations
c) a real final deadline for 'willing to serve' responses from nominees

No more ringers, ever, please. If there are only one or two
willing nominees, so be it.

    Brian

---

From: "Joel M. Halpern" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 05 Apr 2009 00:09:21 -0400

There is a problem with a real firm deadline for nominations.
Things go wrong.  In absurd ways.
The nomcom has been known in the past to decide that they did not like 
the alternatives on the table, and they went out and got someone else 
they liked better.  They are not going to determine that before the 
deadline.
Do we really want to take that away from them?

And on the "willing to serve" deadline, reality creates the issue there. 
  There person may be willing to serve.  There management may have been 
willing to support them.  And them something changes.  Outside of the 
IETF purview.  We don't get to tell companies how to manage their budgets.
So no matter how strict we make the willingness test, at the point of 
finalizing everything it has to be rechecked.
At the same time, when there is still a large pool being considered 
people really can not go to their management and say "make this work for 
me."  Even if their manager does so, if the nomcom turns them down they 
have used up at least good will, and sometimes more than that.
We have to be very careful about where we place those roadblocks.

Declaring that there is a date after which the nomcom is likely to pay 
less attention to new nominees is useful.  Declaring that the nomcom can 
not bend that is harmful.

Yours,
Joel

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 06 Apr 2009 09:38:26 +1200

Joel,

I understand the need for flexibility. There needs to be an escape
clause for the NomCom if external events intervene. But if there is
any *vagueness* about the deadlines, bad things can happen too.
People will be more likely to defer their comments until it's
too late, and then complain that they were ignored.

Suppose the public list for Foobar AD contains Tweedledum and Tweedledee,
everyone sends in their comments, and three days before the First IETF,
the Nomcom announces that they have both had to step down, and that
the shortlist now consists only of Humpty Dumpty. This would be
a very bad situation, and I believe we should write the rules to make
it highly unlikely. I can only see deadlines as a way to do that.

  Brian

---

From: Ross Callon <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 5 Apr 2009 23:59:06 -0400

+1  

When we discussed making the list of candidates public, I just assumed
that this included which position each person was nominated for and
willing to serve (it is certainly possible for a person to be nominated
for multiple positions, but only be willing to serve in one or two of
the multiple positions). I agree that it is better to make this
explicit. 

Ross

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]
On Behalf Of Lars Eggert
Sent: 04 April 2009 06:15
To: Joel M. Halpern
Cc: NomCom Discussion; James M Galvin
Subject: Re: [ietf-nomcom] Ringers / Padding on Nominee list

+1

Lars

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 06 Apr 2009 16:38:13 +1200

I hate to have to clarify my own post, but it seems this wasn't
entirely clear.

1. Why do firm deadlines help?

They would remove ambiguity about when the exceptional condition may
occur. That just seems like it would prevent corner cases that
we haven't even thought of.

2. And if we get a late retraction?

A possible rule change is that once the confiming body confirms
a candidate, then any late refusal by the candidate is considered
to be the equivalent of a sitting person suddenly stepping down,
to be filled according to the vacancy procedures, with all of
the timelines, etc, which that entails.

This seems ugly, but it could be useful as an option that NomCom MAY
invoke (e.g., if they had no other acceptable short-listed candidate).

  Brian

---

From: Robert Elz <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 06 Apr 2009 21:08:01 +0700

Date:        Mon, 06 Apr 2009 09:38:26 +1200
    From:        Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
    Message-ID:  <[email-masked]>

  | Suppose the public list for Foobar AD contains Tweedledum and Tweedledee,
  | everyone sends in their comments, and three days before the First IETF,
  | the Nomcom announces that they have both had to step down, and that
  | the shortlist now consists only of Humpty Dumpty. This would be
  | a very bad situation,

Nonsense.   But take an even more dramatic example, in this one neither Tweedle
steps down, and both remain willing to serve, but assume that just before
the candidates are about to be sent for confirmation, someone sends a message
to the nomcom asking "Why aren't you considering Humpty?  I think he'd be
willing if you asked", and the nomcom all (figuratively) look at each other
and wonder why his name never came up before and all realise that he's
really the perfect and obvious choice, so they ask, get an OK, and it is
done, the candidate list now has a name in it that it never had before.

That's not a bad situation, it is the perfect situation - I doubt it
will arise often, but whenever we find the best person for a job, and
they're avaiulable, we should be selecting them, and we definitely do not
want rules, or even guidelines around that would provide any resistance
to this outcome.   Remember, there's no democracy here, that isn't what
the IETF is about, the only objective is to find the best available
person for each available position.

kre

---

From: Leslie Daigle <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 06 Apr 2009 11:20:36 -0400

So, I mostly agree with this, although I'm unclear on your point about 
moving sitting IAB/IESG members.

ISTM that if a sitting IAB/IESG member is willing to be considered for a 
different position (whether or not they are in an open position), that 
should be just as public as any other nominee.

Part of the rationale is to keep it simple.  Another part of the 
rationale is that the NomCom presumably would appreciate input on 
whether, on balance, the move would be an improvement for the IETF.

I hope we agree?

Leslie.

-- 

-------------------------------------------------------------------
"Reality:
      Yours to discover."
                                 -- ThinkingCat
Leslie Daigle
[email-masked]
-------------------------------------------------------------------

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 06 Apr 2009 12:17:30 -0400

--On Monday, April 06, 2009 09:38 +1200 Brian E Carpenter
<[email-masked]> wrote:

> Joel,
> 
> I understand the need for flexibility. There needs to be an
> escape clause for the NomCom if external events intervene. But
> if there is any *vagueness* about the deadlines, bad things
> can happen too. People will be more likely to defer their
> comments until it's too late, and then complain that they were
> ignored.
> 
> Suppose the public list for Foobar AD contains Tweedledum and
> Tweedledee, everyone sends in their comments, and three days
> before the First IETF, the Nomcom announces that they have
> both had to step down, and that the shortlist now consists
> only of Humpty Dumpty. This would be a very bad situation, and
> I believe we should write the rules to make it highly
> unlikely. I can only see deadlines as a way to do that.

Brian,

The direction this thread has taken is one of the reasons I'm
very sympathetic to Ted's comments at the plenary, which I
construe as "it is wasteful and dangerous to keep doing this
sort of fine-tuning of minor aspects of the process; we need to
look at things more fundamentally instead".  That may have been
a little broader than what he had in mind, but what I'm about to
suggest interacts strongly with one of his main points.

Historically, there have been two assumptions built into the
Nomcom model.  I think we might have taken advantage of the
first early on, but not recently.  The second has not been used
although I suspect there are occasions when it should have been.
I think both should be preserved because difficult times are
likely to make them more important than they have been in the
past:

(1) It is the responsibility of the Nomcom to find acceptable
(and optimal) candidates.  At _any_ time in the process, they
should be able to conclude that someone who has not volunteered
would be worth including, find that person, twist arms as
needed, and then consider him or her on a par with (or even
ahead of) those whose names were put forward earlier.  

You can't put a deadline or firm cutoff on that and have it work
because a Nomcom could quite plausibly discover, very late in
the process and after all of the intended comments were in, that
it wasn't completely happy with the answers or with the nominees
more generally and go off and do some targeted recruiting.   An
open list wouldn't help with that and, unless that is clear to
all and the open list specifications were written very
carefully, might interfere with it.  

The option of the Nomcom doing targeted recruiting is likely to
become more important in difficult times because there may be
many people who are unable or unwilling to volunteer who might,
nonetheless, be good choices.  That list includes not only those
who are shy about becoming nominees or candidates but people who
have been actively participating remotely who might be able to
find the resources to attend and participate for a few years if
they actually were selected.  All things being equal, I'd prefer
nominees who had been, e.g., interacting face to face with WGs
to 
those who had not, but things are not equal and are likely to
get less so --given the choice of a poor candidate with that
exposure and a good one without it, the Nomcom should have as
much flexibility about how it does the evaluation as possible.

Kre's comment, although not precisely addressed to the sort of
targeted recruiting I'm most concerned about, is part of the
same issue.   The Nomcom needs to be able to make the best
choices possible rather than being overconstrained by rules.
Otherwise, things will deteriorate toward a process by which
questionnaires are scored in some mechanical way and the nominee
with the highest score will become the candidate.   Given a
choice between that and a secret ballot conducted among all of
the community members who are nomcom-eligible, I'd prefer the
latter... and I really hate that idea.

For better or worse, another corollary to the option of the
Nomcom's doing active recruiting (in addition to "wait for
volunteers" or "call for nominations" passive recruiting) is
that, if there is only a single candidate for a position, it
implies either 

	(i) that candidate is so unambiguously outstanding that
	there is no question about the desirable outcome, or
	
	(ii) the Nomcom fell down on the job, or
	
	(iii) the job description is such that almost no one
	plausible is willing to do it (see (2) below).

Note, in this regard, that we've had people returned to the IESG
or IAB despite considerable controversy about their behavior.
Often the people involved have appeared to have taken being
re-selected as a mandate to continue and enhance the problematic
behavior.  Knowing that one was the only candidate and that the
community had no choice could make that behavior pattern even
worse -- exposure of that that information would be one of the
downsides of opening up the candidate lists unless the Nomcom
took the possibility as more pressure to actively recruit.

The "treat someone who becomes a candidate but is then unable to
serve as a vacancy" model raises similar issues, which are
almost a corollary.  If people have a reasonable good-faith
belief that they will be able to serve and consider themselves
otherwise appropriate, then I'd rather have them volunteer/ be
nominated and to be able to decline at the end point without
having to make public changes in internal company relationships,
lack of support in a deteriorating economy, etc.  If the plan is
to require them to have a long-term commitment before
volunteering or to risk having to be selected, appointed, and
then immediately resigning, it is going to reduce the pool of
volunteers/nominees, perhaps eliminating some people who
ultimately would have been able to serve.  Not good.

(2) The Nomcom has the option of dealing with a "no good
candidates for that position" situation by leaving it vacant and
insisting that the relevant body rewrite the job description to
make the position fill-able, if necessary by reorganizing
itself.  My specific concern here is that a number of IAB, IAOC,
and IESG have gradually expanded in terms of the time commitment
they require.  I hope that the bodies involved, and the
community more generally, can consider how to reverse that trend
before we reach the point that people's willingness to be
nominated and Nomcom decisions about them driven more by the
availability of people who can devote most of their time to the
IETF for two-four years or longer.  But, if that buck gets
passed to the Nomcom, I believe it is very important that the
Nomcom be able to push back by not filling a position rather
than making selections that they consider marginal or
unacceptable.

     john

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 07 Apr 2009 09:29:57 +1200

On 2009-04-07 04:17, John C Klensin wrote:

...
> The Nomcom needs to be able to make the best

I completely agree. Overdesign will hurt us, and your message
explains some of the ways this can happen. So there needs to be
some sort of governing clause that gives NomCom discretion to
vary the procedure when an unexpected event of any kind occurs.

However, one consequence of publishing the list of willing nominees
is that it will increase the community's expectation of visibility
into NomCom procedure. Therefore, I still prefer that we set out the
normal procedure, including deadlines and foreseeable exceptions,
in an unambiguous way. Otherwise, the NomCom will find itself having
to explain what it's doing in a lot more detail than in the past;
I'd rather that only happens in response to exceptions.

I guess I'm arguing for judicious use of SHOULD and MAY rather than
MUST.

    Brian

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 06 Apr 2009 18:34:20 -0400

--On Tuesday, April 07, 2009 09:29 +1200 Brian E Carpenter
<[email-masked]> wrote:

> However, one consequence of publishing the list of willing
> nominees is that it will increase the community's expectation
> of visibility into NomCom procedure. Therefore, I still prefer
> that we set out the normal procedure, including deadlines and
> foreseeable exceptions, in an unambiguous way. Otherwise, the
> NomCom will find itself having to explain what it's doing in a
> lot more detail than in the past; I'd rather that only happens
> in response to exceptions.
> 
> I guess I'm arguing for judicious use of SHOULD and MAY rather
> than MUST.

And I'm arguing, first, for enough carefully-written text to set
the expectations very carefully.  I don't see that as
incompatible with your suggestions.   However, if the reason is
that publishing the list is likely to create unreasonable
expectations, I'd rather that we work on the expectations rather
than making more rules.

If nothing else, I've had too much experience --as I imagine
many others on the list have-- with a list of foreseeable
exceptions evolving in the minds of various folks into a
comprehensive list of all possible exceptions... such that,
i.e., anything else is treated as a process violation, not a
permitted exception that didn't happen to be listed.  From my
point of view, that implies that a document should be clear
about what expectations are reasonable and which are not and
then give your foreseeable exceptions as examples of likely
exceptions, but only as examples (and clearly identified as
such).

My other point is that, while I'm not inclined to try to stem
the tide of enthusiasm for making the names public, I don't see
it as entirely a good thing and hope that others can appreciate
that we sacrifice some things, and create new risks, by going in
that direction.

    john

---

From: Andrew Lange <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 2009 09:23:53 -0700

The procedure that has been used in the past, when mentioning  
deadlines in the process has been one which has allowed some  
flexibility.  That has been:  "To receive full consideration for the  
position submit nominations by X", or "To receive full consideration  
of your comments on candidate Y, submit comments by Z."  This provides  
a reasonable expectation of a deadline, and it generally respected. It  
also give the nomcom flexibility in rejecting a candidate due to  
something too late to be practical, such as a nomination 5 days before  
the deadline, or considering additional important information that may  
come in late.  If things are submitted after the deadline, don't  
expect them to be considered, but the nomcom may if it so chooses.

Andrew