Subject: Re: draft-klensin-nomcom-term-00.txt

From: Pekka Savola <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 1 Aug 2005 09:17:12 +0300 (EEST)

Hi,

(I'll write my comments at the end of this thread.)

I'm not sure if I can see whether the two-phased approach could work
or not, so at the moment I don't want to take a stance one way or the other. 
However, there was one part in the review of incumbents (sect 2.1), below,
that concerned me which is probably worth a mention.

Specifically, the proposal seems to be underlining (perhaps the 
unstated belief by some) that if a potential AD candidate isn't 
willing to sign up for at least 4 years, he'll be seen as an 
incompetent, inable, and/or mal- or non-feasant.  That's not good.

It may be my age, but IMHO even two years of commitment is significant.  Do
we really want to cut down the list of people even further by discouraging
folks who wouldn't want to get a 4 year sentence?

It seems to me that a problem could be that,
  - folks don't learn the trade fast enough
    * maybe there aren't sufficient knowledge of the job beforehand, so we
      can't coach the people to the job before they take it.  [it might be
      that the document shepherding, genart/directorate review processes,
      etc. may have helped here recently]
    * or we need to ensure there's a way to learn it faster, either by
      selecting and identifying the candidates who are
      more prepared or creating the preparatory materials which could be
      useful for the new folks.
  - the terms, if meant to be held at least twice for any reason except
    incompetence, are too long
     * maybe the terms should be 1.5 years or whatever instead (this would
       cause problems for nomcom schedules, I guess, though).

....

   In Phase 1, the Nomcom will evaluate the performance of incumbents,
    collecting information from the community as needed to do that.  The
    nomcom is instructed that an incumbent should be returned once (i.e.,
    permitted/encouraged to serve two terms) unless there is strong
    evidence of problems (e.g., incompetence, inability to work with WGs,
    non-feasance, or malfeasance).  Conversely, the nomcom should assume
    that it is better to return an incumbent who has served two terms to
    the community and active WG work unless some special circumstances,
    including but not limited to an outstanding job, apply. [...]

-- 
Pekka Savola                 "You each name yourselves king, yet the
Netcore Oy                    kingdom bleeds."
Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

---

From: Scott W Brim <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 01 Aug 2005 10:50:31 +0200

Discussion has been couched in terms of whether term limits are a good
thing.  Really, what the discussion should be about is whether limits
on the NomCom are a good thing.

It's one thing to give the NomCom guidelines, it's another to
constrict them.  The NomCom is pivotal in IETF "governance" and is
also vulnerable to attacks.  The NomCom should be defended strongly
against people who don't like the way things are going in IETF
management.

Ideally, "term limits" should be ad hoc, per person, as needed.  If
you don't like the fact that some AD has been around forever, tell the
NomCom.  If you believe that competency in the job is just one
criterion, and that potential competency should be considered
important ... tell the NomCom.  That's what they are there for.  I'm
assuming you're already volunteering to be on it.

If there is justification for the "firing" of a long-time AD, well,
the AD probably should feel embarrassed.  Forcing *all* IESG or IAB
members out, even if doing so hurts the IETF and the Internet, to
avoid embarrassment of someone who shouldn't be there is just too
"politically correct".

Those who have left IESG/IAB positions and taken up others have done
so because they are capable and want to contribute.  The fact that
they can do so does not mean it is all right to force them out of
positions where they might be even better for the IETF.

As for learning the trade, I don't know.  IESG/IAB members could have
an "apprentice" program from their directorates etc., but as has been
said, there is nothing like actually being in it.  Certainly, forcing
people out at inappropriate times is way off the path of wisdom.

In summary, give guidelines and opinions to the NomCom but don't
restrict them unless they have too much power.

swb

---

From: Pete Resnick <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 1 Aug 2005 15:04:34 +0200

On 8/1/05 at 10:50 AM +0200, Scott W Brim wrote:

>It's one thing to give the NomCom guidelines, it's another to constrict them.

The document gives them guidelines and does not constrict them. Where 
is the problem?

The document expresses a preference (and the community needs to be 
heard on whether they agree with that preference) that after 1-term, 
the NomCom should default to reappoint good folks (because it's worth 
having folks with 1 term of experience stay on) and after 2 terms 
should default to not reappoint (in order to get some new folks 
experience and get the experience folks back on the ground and into 
other non-IESG work). I personally would like to see more people get 
experience on the IESG and get some IESG brain cells back into the 
community before they're completely burned out, so I kind of like the 
proposal. But I don't see where you're having a problem.

>The NomCom should be defended strongly against people who don't like 
>the way things are going in IETF management.

I cannot tell you how much I disagree with that statement. The NomCom 
should hear the people who don't like the way things are going in 
IETF management *loud and clear*. The current IETF management is 
represented with liaisons on the NomCom, so the NomCom gets plenty of 
input from folks participating in "the way things are going in IETF 
management". And overall, it's *much* easier for the NomCom (and the 
community) to pat everyone on the head and say "You're doing a fine 
job." When someone gets up the gumption to complain about the 
leadership, that should get serious consideration. Sometimes people 
complaining are just being complainers. But I see no reason to 
"defend" the NomCom against complainers in general.

>If you believe that competency in the job is just one criterion, and 
>that potential competency should be considered important ... tell 
>the NomCom.

If there is community consensus that there are such criteria, 
communicating them in a document seems quite reasonable (and more 
efficient than having NomCom solicit individuals).

>Forcing *all* IESG or IAB members out, even if doing so hurts the 
>IETF and the Internet, to

Scott, what in the draft would force this case? This is just FUD mongering.

pr
-- 
Pete Resnick <http://www.qualcomm.com/~presnick/>
QUALCOMM Incorporated

---

From: Eliot Lear <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 01 Aug 2005 16:47:24 +0200

Pete Resnick wrote:
> I personally would like to see more people get experience on the
> IESG and get some IESG brain cells back into the community before
> they're completely burned out, so I kind of like the proposal.

Why discourage the NOMCOM from picking the best person for the job?
It's easy for the IESG members to get back into the community before
they're completely burned out: don't reup.  I don't see that the IESG
will improve simply with new blood, and what I do see is an attempt to
fix a vague problem by spraying bullets indiscriminately.  Call them
guidelines or preferences or what-have-you, if we write them down it
will take a very strong NOMCOM to say, "Really, Bert Wijnen is the man
for the job" (for example).

Eliot

---

From: Pete Resnick <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 1 Aug 2005 17:26:25 +0200

>Why discourage the NOMCOM from picking the best person for the job?

First of all, it's naive to think that comparing incumbents to 
newcomers ends you up "picking the best person for the job". There's 
the "devil you know" effect: People are much more inclined to pick 
someone who they know (even if they have known faults) over people 
who are unknown quantities because you can rather gather enough 
information to convince yourself that the new person *is* the best 
person for the job. In fact, I've seen ample evidence (not conclusive 
information since NomCom negotiations are confidential) that NomComs 
will pick people who have demonstrable problems being ADs on the 
grounds that they couldn't convince themselves someone else was 
better.

Second, we have the problem of people who *are* the best person for 
the job not even applying solely on the grounds that they don't want 
to challenge the incumbent (i.e., "the Jeff Schiller effect"). We 
have a pool of people in the IETF that is large and deep with 
ability. If incumbents re-upping causes us not to be able to use that 
pool, that's WORSE for the IETF. I think we'd get more people who 
were qualified to jump in if they knew that the likelihood was low 
for 2+ term folks to get re-upped.

Finally, by dint of human nature, NomComs don't always select the 
best person for the job. On the not-so-great side, sometimes there 
are feelings of loyalty involved or people are put into positions 
because other positions (to which they were better suited) were not 
open. But more importantly, being "best" is not a binary quality: 
Sometimes there is someone who is "best", but for reasons of 
leadership development might be passed over for someone who is less 
optimal, but there are hopes that eventually they will be best. I 
think it is a good thing for the NomCom to be encouraged out of 
falling into natural human patterns of re-upping people and getting 
some fresh blood into the leadership.

>they're completely burned out: don't reup.

Nonsense. All sorts of personal feelings (felling that stepping down 
is some sort of failure, feelings of "needing to do the right thing 
for the IETF", and even less positive things like career implications 
or pride in being in the leadership) can cause people to do things 
that are not in the best interest of the community, even if their 
intentions are good. I can point to several examples (which I won't 
publicly) of people who were way passed burned out who, for whatever 
internal reasons, continued to stay on despite diminishing returns.

>I don't see that the IESG will improve simply with new blood

Again, it's not just about "improving the IESG" (though I do think 
new blood is usually a pretty good thing). It's about leadership 
development. It's about giving the NomCom a reasonable way out of 
some pretty natural but problematic decision making patterns. And 
it's about getting experienced people who've been on the IESG back 
onto the front lines where I honestly think they'll do more good than 
they do now.

>and what I do see is an attempt to fix a vague problem by spraying 
>bullets indiscriminately.

I don't see any of the above as "vague problems".

>Call them guidelines or preferences or what-have-you, if we write 
>them down it will take a very strong NOMCOM to say, "Really, Bert 
>Wijnen is the man for the job" (for example).

Yup.

pr
-- 
Pete Resnick <http://www.qualcomm.com/~presnick/>
QUALCOMM Incorporated - Direct phone: (858)651-4478, Fax: (858)651-1102