Subject: Re: [ietf-nomcom] "Lobbying"

From: Leslie Daigle <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 01 Apr 2009 16:23:27 -0400

Hi,

 > As author (on an individual draft), I was OK with just assuming that the
 > community could provide appropriate back pressure (unacceptable NomCom
 > behaviors are counterproductive and don't work), but am now wondering if
 > the concern is that people may devise behaviors that aren't acceptable,
 > BUT SEEM TO WORK? If that's the concern, I can go there, too, but if
 > it's not, I'd rather not try to specify acceptable behavior in a lot of
 > detail.
 >
 > Thoughts?

I'm fine with the "not in much detail" goal, as I agree with Fred's 
points that trying to capture a lot about what NOT to do would be 
undesireable.

However, I think we will spend a lot of churn on ietf-discuss each year 
if we don't get some clarity about what to do (or not do).  "Can you 
believe so-and-so just said X about their candidacy?".  And so on.

Trying to start simple, how about:

0/ Reminder that WG mailing lists are for working group work only -- 
i.e., lobbying or support for candidates is strictly off topic.

1/ Ad hominem attacks are off limit on *any* IETF mailing list

2/ Expressions of interest should/should not/may/may not/ be posted to 
ietf-discuss

3/ Comments on a candidate's appropriateness for a role should be send 
only to the NomCom.

Leslie.

Spencer Dawkins wrote:
> So ... Russ will be posting the notes from last Wednesday's plenary, but 
> I'd like to kick off one topic where I'm not excited about the direction 
> we might be going... this was the only hum that surprised me.
> 
> Russ gets to make the consensus calls, but I'm pretty sure that I saw 
> more people humming for "saying something about what is acceptable 
> NomCom behavior", than humming against it, during discussion of 
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-dawkins-nomcom-openlist-02.
> 
> I'm pretty sure that we do have some community norms that nominees might 
> thank us for pointing out ("sending out e-mail that says Company X 
> endorses Candidate Y is, at best, unproductive and might be 
> counterproductive"), but I'm concerned that trying to specify what is/is 
> not acceptable NomCom behavior in some detail probably underestimates 
> the ability of IETF participants to devise unacceptable behaviors...
> 
> :-(
> 
> As author (on an individual draft), I was OK with just assuming that the 
> community could provide appropriate back pressure (unacceptable NomCom 
> behaviors are counterproductive and don't work), but am now wondering if 
> the concern is that people may devise behaviors that aren't acceptable, 
> BUT SEEM TO WORK? If that's the concern, I can go there, too, but if 
> it's not, I'd rather not try to specify acceptable behavior in a lot of 
> detail.
> 
> Thoughts?
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Spencer
> 
> _______________________________________________
> ietf-nomcom mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-nomcom

-- 

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

---

From: Thomas Narten <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 01 Apr 2009 16:51:54 -0400

Well, one thing I would not like to see is public discussions about
any individual's fitness for serving. By public, I mean on any mailing
list that is generally open and/or publically archived.

It's one thing to be allowed to speak/comment privately about specific
individuals (and be able to speak with colleagues, etc.). It's quite
another to start having discussion spill out into the public.

After all, we are fudamentally talking about personnel decisions.

One would think the above would go without saying, but I fear it will
happen if there are no rules at all. Not all of IETF "participants"
play nice.

Thomas

---

From: "Jeffrey A. Williams" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 31 Mar 2009 19:47:21 -0700

Thomas and all,

 Sorry Thomas I disagree on the grounds of what you seemingly
are indicating however nuanced is far less than open and transparent.
As such accountability becomes far less evident or even in existence.

> happen if there are no rules at all. Not all of IETF "participants"

Regards,

Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 284k members/stakeholders strong!)
"Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" -
   Abraham Lincoln
"YES WE CAN!"  Barack ( Berry ) Obama

"Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is
very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt

"If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B;
liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by
P: i.e., whether B is less than PL."
United States v. Carroll Towing  (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947]
===============================================================
Updated 1/26/04
CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS.
div. of Information Network Eng.  INEG. INC.
ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail
[email-masked]
My Phone: 214-244-4827

---

From: James M Galvin <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 02 Apr 2009 07:17:34 -0400

-- On April 1, 2009 4:23:27 PM -0400 Leslie Daigle 
<[email-masked]> wrote regarding Re: [ietf-nomcom] "Lobbying" --

I like this.  A few comments inline.

> i.e., lobbying or support for candidates is strictly off topic.

I'm not aware that this is a stated policy anywhere, although I suppose 
one could argue that it is understood I suppose.

However, most working group mailing list welcome messages don't even 
say this.

What about lists that do not belong to a working group, or belong to a 
concluded working group?  And I presume you intend for BOF lists to be 
included as a "working group" in this context.

> 2/ Expressions of interest should/should not/may/may not/ be posted
> to ietf-discuss

I think "may" and I would include expressions non-interest.

> 3/ Comments on a candidate's appropriateness for a role should be
> send only to the NomCom.

Absolutely!

Jim

---

From: Barry Leiba <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 2 Apr 2009 10:08:03 -0400

>> 3/ Comments on a candidate's appropriateness for a role should be

Allowing "expressions of interest" brings up questions of where the
line is drawn.  From a simple "I'd like to be the Banana Area
Director" to a full campaign for the position ("If I were the Banana
Area Director, I would make sure we worked on pesticide standards,
because the area hasn't spent enough effort on those issues and..."),
there's a lot of ground.  How far can one go before one crosses the
line?

And consider that some will think that allowing statements should mean
allowing rebuttals.  That will quickly get us into airing comments on
the candidate.

Barry

---

From: Leslie Daigle <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 02 Apr 2009 10:24:58 -0400

So, a thought that I refrained from expressing in the previous mail: 
the NomCom could define that, in the same way they define the 
questionnaire every year.

If any statements of interest are to be supported, perhaps a lot of 
angst would be removed if the overall process was:

	. NomCom defines candidate questionnaire
	. NomCom publishes questionnaires submitted

Thus -- willing candidates are describing themselves to the NomCom and 
to the community in one go.  And it gives the community something to 
comment on to the NomCom.

Or else -- no statements of interest should be allowed and *all* 
comments go only to the NomCom.

Leslie.

--

---

From: "Joel M. Halpern" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 02 Apr 2009 10:34:37 -0400

I would strongly prefer not to see the questionnaire responses 
published.  (The questions being asked by the nomcom are already public, 
so that nominees can answer them.)
Those questions often prompt well thought out, nuanced, and sometimes 
quite critical comments.  If they were public, I would expect to get 
less useful information.

Conversely, I do not see any benefit in making the questionnaires 
public.  Remember, the goal of making the list public is so that people 
have the information to provide their own comments.  The goal is NOT to 
provoke a public exchange of views on any given area, body, or 
individual.  Evaluating the input is the nomcoms job.

I can not object to simple statements of "I have volunteered / been 
nominated for job X."  After all, my view is that the nomcom should be 
able to (and should choose to / be required to) make that information 
public.

But anything more than that on any IETF list is counter-productive.
Yes, there are ways that folks can get at some of that anyway.  For 
example, they can post on an area list about changes they think the area 
needs.  Such a post is allowed (ought to be encouraged) even with no 
connection with nomination, so I can not see outlawing it.  And yes, 
that might prompt other people to send feedback (positive or negative) 
about the person to the nomcom.  But the list discussion should be about 
the idea, not the person.   [Frankly, folks do that anyway.  I think the 
SIP folks would have had to be oblivious not to think the nomcom was 
reading the SIP reorg discussions, and observing the debate in December.)

Yours,
Joel

Leslie Daigle wrote:
> 
> So, a thought that I refrained from expressing in the previous mail: the 
> NomCom could define that, in the same way they define the questionnaire 
> every year.
>

---

From: Leslie Daigle <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 02 Apr 2009 10:38:03 -0400

So -- this works for me (no statements of interest beyond binary) -- and 
I'd love to see this captured in the text.

Leslie.

--

---

From: "Spencer Dawkins" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 2 Apr 2009 09:38:13 -0500

> If any statements of interest are to be supported, perhaps a lot of angst 
> would be removed if the overall process was:
>

Hi, Leslie,

Did you mean questionnaire responses here, or just questionnaires? Barry 
seemed to assume responses in his reply to you.

Thanks,

Spencer

---

From: Leslie Daigle <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 02 Apr 2009 10:49:25 -0400

Hi,

Yes, I meant completed questionnaires.

Personally -- I lean towards Joel's reasoning.  Barry, I think, leans 
otherwise.  Either way -- this is probably the crux of the issue of what 
we (collectively) think about self-representation (and lobbying).

Leslie.

--

---

From: "Spencer Dawkins" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 2 Apr 2009 10:35:02 -0500

Speaking only for myself, I'm coming down where Joel is in the following 
text.

> Conversely, I do not see any benefit in making the questionnaires public. 
> Remember, the goal of making the list public is so that people have the 
> information to provide their own comments.  The goal is NOT to provoke a 
> public exchange of views on any given area, body, or individual. 
> Evaluating the input is the nomcoms job.
>
> connection with nomination, so I can not see outlawing it.  And yes, that 
> might prompt other people to send feedback (positive or negative) about 
> the person to the nomcom.  But the list discussion should be about the 
> idea, not the person.   [Frankly, folks do that anyway.  I think the SIP 
> folks would have had to be oblivious not to think the nomcom was reading 
> the SIP reorg discussions, and observing the debate in December.)

If the goal is to information on candidate views for NomCom, that's what 
questionnaire responses are for. If the goal is to generate feedback on 
nominees for NomCom, that's what the public nominee list is for. I think we 
should trust NomCom to sort through the questionnaire responses and feedback 
on nominees and do the right thing.

Thanks,

Spencer

---

From: Barry Leiba <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 2 Apr 2009 12:45:43 -0400

To be clear, now that I'm back at my computer (it's hard to be as
clear from the BlackBerry):  I think there's useful information
contained in the questionnaire responses for the community and for
those giving feedback.  The questionnaires for AD, for instance,
consistently ask what the candidate's vision for the area is, what the
candidate thinks about liaison relationship, and the like.

When I'm giving feedback, in addition to commenting on the person and
her work in general, it would be useful to be able to comment on the
candidate's position statement.

Of course, as I said in my briefer note, there needs to be part of the
response that's kept to the NomCom, at the choice of the candidate.
Example:

Q: What is your vision for the Banana Area?  (This response will be public.)

A: The Banana Area needs to focus more on organic cultivation, and I
will lead the area in that direction by [...etc...].

Q: Is there anything related to the previous question that you want to
say privately to the NomCom and the confirmation body?

A: The previous AD has been a headstrong proponent of pesticides, and
his persistence with his company's agenda in that regard has
[...etc...].

Similarly for the IAB: the NomCom report showed that there's confusion
and/or uncertainty about the IAB's role (what it should do) and about
what it actually does.  Public statements about what IAB candidates
intend to do if appointed would be useful fodder for community
feedback on those candidates.

> public exchange of views on any given area, body, or individual.  Evaluating
> the input is the nomcoms job.

I'm not suggesting that there be open discussion of this on the
mailing lists.  If the questionnaires were defined this way, and the
public portions were made public on the NomCom web site, then that
might (1) promote more community feedback and (2) make more of that
feedback more valuable to the NomCom.

I would specifically NOT want to see ANY discussion of candidates or
candidacy on the mailing lists.

Barry

---

From: "Andrew G. Malis" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 2 Apr 2009 14:05:19 -0400

Barry,

I'm sorry, but I'm in the other camp with Joel and Spencer. I think
candidates will feel more free to speak plainly on any particular
question if they know that the answer will be private to either
Noncom, or Nomcom and the confirming body (with it being clear on each
question as to who will be reading each answer). There's no way to
predict the way someone will free-associate when answering any
particular question, and making them have to feel like they need to
guard their answers because they will be made public makes for a less
candid answer.

Making answers public might also color what people will say to Nomcom.
If I were on Nomcom, I would prefer hearing comments about candidates
based upon their prior work, not based upon what they said in their
nomination questionaire.

I'm also in agreement with Joel and others on a public binary
expression of interest being OK, but nothing beyond that.

And I also feel that there's no problem with making the list of
nominated individuals public for the purpose of soliciting comments.
After all, people can be nominated by anyone for any reason - just
being nominated doesn't mean that you self-nominated or otherwise
solicited the nomination. I am very much against the prior practice of
adding ringers.

Cheers,
Andy

---

From: Barry Leiba <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 2 Apr 2009 14:34:59 -0400

> I'm sorry, but I'm in the other camp with Joel and Spencer.

Oh, no apology needed, to be sure!
Anyway, I think it's worth another round....

> question if they know that the answer will be private

That's where they get the "private" section.

But I think potential leaders should make public statements about what
they intend to do.  In our environment, I'd hate to see "campaigning",
so having the public statement be a public *portion* of the
questionnaire makes the most sense.

> based upon their prior work, not based upon what they said in their

I think we need both.
In the example in my last message, suppose you didn't know me very
well because we worked in different working groups within the Banana
Area... but you had a definite response to my statement that I'd steer
the area toward organics.  You might strongly agree or disagree, and
that would be important stuff for the NomCom to know -- is the
direction I want to take the area a direction that people working in
the area agree with or not.

My statements might also prompt someone who knows me and would comment
anyway to mention other things in her comment that she might not have
thought of.  "Oh, yes," she might say, "that's something I want to
give feedback on (positive or negative) to the NomCom."  Someone might
actually want to refute something I said, having specific
counterexamples.

It's obviously a very different situation, but...
Suppose we were nominating a U.S. president by this sort of mechanism,
and you were told that the candidates were Barack Obama, John McCain,
Ralph Nader, Leslie Daigle, and Joel Halpern.  The first three have
been in politics for a long time, so you know what they stand for and
you've heard what they aim to do.  You know Leslie and Joel from the
IETF, and you really do think they're capable of pretty much anything.
 You think they *can* do the job.  But do you agree with where they
want to take the country?

So, the League of Women Voters sends them each a questionnaire:
1. What would you do about the economy?
2. Where do you stand on stem-cell research?
3. What should we do about the immigration situation?
...etc...

Don't you think their responses to that, and feedback on it from you
and the rest of the community, would be important for the NomCom's
decision about who to appoint president?  (Or IETF Chair.  Or
whatever.)

Fortunately, the decisions here have far less impact.  Still......

Barry

---

From: "Joel M. Halpern" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 02 Apr 2009 14:45:07 -0400

I think expecting folks to make "public statements" ends up selecting 
for the wrong things.
I don't think we want the nomcom picking folks based on how well they 
compose a public description.

The point of the area vision questions on the questionaire is, I think, 
about understanding how the nominee looks at things, not about the 
nominee persuading folks of his vision.  It is not even about holding 
the nominee to his word later about what he says he will do.  It serves 
to frame an evaluation and understanding.  Making the answers public 
does not help that.

If the community wants a public discussion of any given area, or all the 
aspects of our community, they have tools to make that happen.  (To pick 
on the SIP folks again, they clearly wanted such a discussion, and they 
had one.)

I seem to be unable to see the value you see in making those public.
And I see significant drawbacks.  In spite of your comments about not 
wanting discussions of people, I think it will almost inevitably lead to 
quasi-public (or fully public) discussions of people.
Yours,
Joel

---

From: Christian Huitema <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 2 Apr 2009 11:44:09 -0700

> want to take the country?

The question is precisely whether this is "a very different situation". We could very well have decided back in 1992 that open elections and campaigning were the best way to get rid of the "old boys club". There was a reason we did not.

Open campaigning essentially transforms the leadership selection into a political process. Instead of judging people on their personal abilities, you end up evaluating platforms. More importantly, you end up changing the IESG from being a "steering group", similar to judges, to becoming a maker of technology choices, similar to the executive power. We would rather leave this executive power to the working groups.

-- Christian Huitema

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 03 Apr 2009 11:52:37 +1300

+1 to everything that Andy says below. That seems like
the right balance, and a big enough change from current
practice that we can expect a real difference, without
breaking everything.

    Brian

---

From: Ross Callon <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 2 Apr 2009 21:17:03 -0400

> want to take the country?

In US elections, several hundred million people get to vote (based on
very precise and strictly enforces rules regarding who is a US citizen
and who is not). Thus the several hundred million people need to know
what candidates intend to do. 

In the selection of the IESG, IAB, and so on, the ten nomcom voting
members get to vote. Thus the ten nomcom voting members need to know
what the candidates intend to do. This process works pretty sell and has
a number of advantages, including that the ten voting nomcom members get
to personally meet and question the candidates. 

I think that our nomcom process generally works pretty well. I think
that publicly saying who the candidates are that are willing to do the
job would allow broader input to nomcom, which would be good. However, I
think that turning the entire event into a public political process
would not. 

Thus I am in agreement with Joel, that we should make public the list of
who is willing to serve in each position, but not make public the
candidate's questionnaire responses. 

Ross

---

From: Bernie Hoeneisen <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 3 Apr 2009 08:14:56 +0200 (CEST)

I agree with Joel, Andrew and other folks who prefer to rather keep
questionaires targeted to the NomCom (and confirmirming body) only as it 
hasbeen the case till now.

cheers.
  Bernie

On Thu, 2 Apr 2009, Joel M. Halpern wrote:

> I think expecting folks to make "public statements" ends up selecting for the 
> wrong things.
> I don't think we want the nomcom picking folks based on how well they compose 
> a public description.
>
> The point of the area vision questions on the questionaire is, I think, about 
> understanding how the nominee looks at things, not about the nominee 
> persuading folks of his vision.  It is not even about holding the nominee to 
> his word later about what he says he will do.  It serves to frame an 
> evaluation and understanding.  Making the answers public does not help that.
>
> aspects of our community, they have tools to make that happen.  (To pick on 
> the SIP folks again, they clearly wanted such a discussion, and they had 
> one.)
>
> And I see significant drawbacks.  In spite of your comments about not wanting 
> discussions of people, I think it will almost inevitably lead to quasi-public 
> (or fully public) discussions of people.
> Yours,
> Joel
>
> Barry Leiba wrote:

---

From: Lars Eggert <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 3 Apr 2009 14:35:34 +0300

> candidate's questionnaire responses.

Agree with Ross and Joel.

Lars

---

From: James M Galvin <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 03 Apr 2009 13:00:28 -0400

Andy sums up my position nicely.

Jim

-- On April 2, 2009 2:05:19 PM -0400 "Andrew G. Malis" 
<[email-masked]> wrote regarding Re: [ietf-nomcom] "Lobbying" --

> > consistently ask what the candidate's vision for the area is, what
> > the candidate thinks about liaison relationship, and the like.
> >
> > When I'm giving feedback, in addition to commenting on the person
> > and her work in general, it would be useful to be able to comment
> > on the candidate's position statement.
> >
> > Of course, as I said in my briefer note, there needs to be part of
> > the response that's kept to the NomCom, at the choice of the
> > candidate. Example:
> >
> > Q: Is there anything related to the previous question that you want
> > to say privately to the NomCom and the confirmation body?
> >
> > A: The previous AD has been a headstrong proponent of pesticides,
> > and his persistence with his company's agenda in that regard has
> > [...etc...].
> >
> > Similarly for the IAB: the NomCom report showed that there's
> > confusion and/or uncertainty about the IAB's role (what it should
> > do) and about what it actually does.  Public statements about what
> > IAB candidates intend to do if appointed would be useful fodder for
> > community feedback on those candidates.
> >
> >> public.  Remember, the goal of making the list public is so that
> >> people have the information to provide their own comments.  The
> >> goal is NOT to provoke a public exchange of views on any given
> >> area, body, or individual.  Evaluating the input is the nomcoms
> >> job.
> >
> > mailing lists.  If the questionnaires were defined this way, and
> > the public portions were made public on the NomCom web site, then
> > that might (1) promote more community feedback and (2) make more of
> > that feedback more valuable to the NomCom.
> >

---

From: Eric Rosen <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 03 Apr 2009 13:20:39 -0400

> Open campaigning  essentially transforms  the leadership selection  into a
> political process. Instead of  judging people on their personal abilities,
> you end up evaluating platforms. 

In fact, the only things that matter  when selecting someone to be an AD are
(a) what  his/her platform is, (b)  whether he/she actually  believes in the
platform, and  (c) whether  he/she has the  capability to actually  carry it
out.

How can  the community be expected to  provide feedback on a  nominee if the
nominee's platform is kept secret?

What's the point  of trying to judge someone on  their personal abilities if
you don't know the goals to which those abilities are going to be applied?

I think we could get a lot  better feedback about a nominee if he/she had to
state publicly in advance:

- whether they intend to put a  lot of energy into making life difficult for
  everyone else by tweaking the i-d boilerplate 

- whether they intend to put a  lot of energy into making life difficult for
  everyone else  by tweaking the IPR  processes until only  lawyers can post
  drafts

- whether they intend to put a  lot of energy into making life difficult for
  everyone  else  by   requiring  "mandatory  implementations"  of  security
  features that everyone knows won't really be implemented

- whether they intend  to put a lot of energy  into blocking everything that
  doesn't advance one of their pet causes

- whether they intend to interfere a lot with on-going WGs in their area

- whether they  intend to slow down  work in other areas  by instituting new
  kinds of taxes (err, "considerations" sections) to be paid by people doing
  the work in other areas

- etc., etc.

Or perhaps it's better just to  rely totally on a randomly selected group of
people with no particular qualifications (aka nomcom) to figure this all out
in the absence of substantive feedback.

---

From: Fred Baker <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 3 Apr 2009 11:17:03 -0700

> you don't know the goals to which those abilities are going to be  

I doubt that there are many real secrets there. What would you guess  
an AD's job is, or an IAB member's job? Every proto-AD I have spoken  
with has had as an agenda to do that job.

>  kinds of taxes (err, "considerations" sections) to be paid by  

How many ADs do you know of that went into the job with those kinds of  
statements in their heads, or who operate with those kinds of  
statements in their heads?

That may be how it turns out, but folks don't set out to screw up.

---

From: Danny McPherson <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 3 Apr 2009 14:21:24 -0600

> Agree with Ross and Joel.

Yet another "me too"...

-danny

---

From: Stewart Bryant <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 03 Apr 2009 21:22:49 +0100

+1

Stewart

---

From: Danny McPherson <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 3 Apr 2009 15:41:02 -0600

> in the absence of substantive feedback.

[I started to not reply to this, and promise in advance I
won't contribute further to this piece of the thread - but
here it is anyway...]

Eric,
I don't see where you've even volunteered for a NomCom
since 2004, but had you been on a NomCom trudging through
the mountain of feedback they receive ( have, several times),
whether "substantive" or not (something which is largely
subjective), you might well take issue with that statement.

I would also observe that those things you apparently
consider as put in place simply to make life difficult
certainly aren't sexy or fun for IETF leadership, but they're
not there because folks were bored either.  Whether you like
it or not, they're there to protect you, the IETF, and
the larger Internet...

-danny

---

From: Lakshminath Dondeti <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 04 Apr 2009 06:13:36 +0530

> it or not, they're there to protect you, the IETF, and

Huh!  One could easily make the counterargument that a change in 
procedures will preserve the IETF and heck even cure cancer, or at least 
heartburn!  :)

I have had the opportunity to see the "mountains" of information and 
they looked more like molehills in many cases.  There were times where 
there was little to no information to help assist decision making.  I 
can recall cases where one comment weighed far too much into decision 
making; granted, I haven't read minds, but it is telling when the entire 
discussion goes back to that one comment, and of course doing further 
research is hard since there is the worry of people being able to read 
into confidential discussions.

Besides, there is enough public information out there that there hasn't 
been enough feedback and so forth.  Now of course there were cases where 
there was a reasonable amount of information, but it is necessary to 
improve the number of such cases.

best,
Lakshminath