Subject: Publicizing IETF nominee lists [Fwd: Last Call: draft-dawkins-nomcom-openlist (Nominating Committee Process: Open Disclosure of Willing Nominees) to BCP]

From: Leslie Daigle <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2009 10:38:11 -0300

I know Spencer has brought one item of discussion from this last call to 
the general IETF mailing list, but I'd like to draw attention to the 
whole document, which, if passed, will make a significant change in IETF 
practice:  the lists of willing nominees for IETF positions will be 
published publicly.

This has been discussed on the ietf-nomcom list:

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

So, if you're interested, check out the mailing list archives to see how 
potential issues were discussed.

Leslie.

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Last Call: draft-dawkins-nomcom-openlist (Nominating 
Committee 	Process: Open Disclosure of Willing Nominees) to BCP
Date: Fri,  5 Jun 2009 16:45:11 -0700 (PDT)
From: The IESG <[email-masked]>
Reply-To: [email-masked]
To: IETF-Announce <[email-masked]>

The IESG has received a request from an individual submitter to consider
the following document:

- 'Nominating Committee Process: Open Disclosure of Willing Nominees '
    <draft-dawkins-nomcom-openlist-04.txt> as a BCP

The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
final comments on this action.  Please send substantive comments to the
[email-masked] mailing lists by 2009-07-03. Exceptionally,
comments may be sent to [email-masked] instead. In either case, please
retain the beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.

The file can be obtained via
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-dawkins-nomcom-openlist-04.txt

IESG discussion can be tracked via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/pidtracker.cgi?command=view_id&dTag=18213&rfc_flag=0

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

-- 

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

---

From: Sam Hartman <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2009 10:11:27 -0400

Thanks for bringing this to our attention.

Having reviewed the draft, I support publication of this document as a
BCP.  I think it is a long-needed change.  I understand that there are
important tradeoffs involved, and while I acknowledge that there are
disadvantages to this change, I think that it is a significant net
good.

---

From: Jari Arkko <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2009 18:21:20 +0300

I also support the publication of this document (modulo some nits that 
were discussed earlier). Yes, there are trade-offs. But having observed 
the process from various sides over the years, I do I believe adopting 
the more open model is the right thing to do.

Jari

---

From: Phillip Hallam-Baker <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2009 11:32:37 -0400

This is a useful and necessary change.

A more useful change would be to abolish NOMCON and for those
currently qualified to sit on NOMCON to elect the IAB and ADs
directly.

Direct elections provide accountability and authority. Today we have
an Internet Architecture Board that stopped trying to do architecture
after the Kobe revolt. That is a problem because the architecture is
not a static property, without direction it degrades over time.

Instead of the outcome of proposals to change the standards process
being 'the IESG didn't like them', we the broader membership[*] of the
IETF can demand reasons and persons. And we can kick out the people
who are being obstacles to change or proposing changes we disagree
with.

Direct elections allow for contrarian views to enter into the
discussions. The priority of successive NOMCONs has been to ensure
that the members of the IAB get along and to keep out anyone who might
rock the boat. As a result the only members of the awkward squad who
get appointed are the ones who are committed to defending the status
quo at all costs, not the people who point out what is not working.

Yes, there is a risk of factions, but not a very large one. I am a
member of the Oxford Union society and I know quite a bit about that
type of politics. A Cisco or a Microsoft faction would be entirely
counter-productive for the companies involved who come to the IETF to
build industry support for adoption of their proposals and to be part
of the consensus that emerges. The only type of faction that could be
sustained long-term would be one committed to a particular technical
principle such as preventing wiretap-friendly protocols or copyright
enforcement schemes and only then if there was a sizable
counter-faction or some group idiot enough to try to do that type of
thing in IETF.

We should try democracy. It is an old idea, seems to work.

[*] Yes, we should demand consideration as citizens, not serfs. The
pretense that the IETF has no members is very convenient for those
appointed, not so great for the rest of us.

On Wed, Jun 10, 2009 at 10:11 AM, Sam Hartman<[email-masked]> wrote:
> Ietf mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
>

-- 
-- 
New Website: http://hallambaker.com/
View Quantum of Stupid podcasts, Tuesday and Thursday each week,
http://quantumofstupid.com/

---

From: Lars Eggert <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2009 10:51:27 +0200

I agree with Sam and Jari. This is a good and overdue change.

Lars

---

From: SM <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2009 03:20:45 -0700

Hi Phillip,
>currently qualified to sit on NOMCON to elect the IAB and ADs

The implications of the above is much more than publicizing the IETF 
list of nominees.  The discussion of that document highlighted how a 
simple statement like "we want an open list" is not as simple as it sounds.

>Direct elections provide accountability and authority. Today we have

Direct elections can also turn into a popularity contest.  Instead of 
democracy, we can end up with "mediacracy".

>who are being obstacles to change or proposing changes we disagree

You can already ask for reasons.  There's even a "face the 
participants" at each IETF meeting where you can ask a question to 
the IAB, the IESG or a particular member of the body.

There will always be obstacles to change.  There are advantages to 
having these obstacles or else we end up with proposals that suit the 
whim of the day.  The is also room in the current process to kick out people.

>discussions. The priority of successive NOMCONs has been to ensure

Contrarian views can be labelled as the view of the fringe when they 
are only shared by a small minority.  And such views or the people 
holding then will be cast away.

>counter-faction or some group idiot enough to try to do that type of

Although a Cisco or Microsoft faction may be counter-productive, 
there will be an incentive for factions to be formed as the proposed 
system provides an environment conducive for that.  In the new 
system, you'll also have to do away with the notion of 
consensus.  After all, that's not democratic.  The factions that will 
emerge in the long run are those that can use the system to their 
advantage.  When you have direct elections, you cannot aim for long 
term goals as the people expect immediate results.  Or else you won't 
stand a chance when you put your name up for reelection.

>We should try democracy. It is an old idea, seems to work.

For some, yes.  As someone on this mailing list put it, we are guided 
by our interests.  The new system will only amplify that.  The rule 
of the majority is only effective if there is participation.  We only 
have to look at the amount of participation in here to see that there 
will always be a silent majority which only springs to life when a 
narrowly focused issue captures their attention.

>appointed, not so great for the rest of us.

You get the amount of consideration you deserve.  If you behave like 
a serf, you will be considered as one. :-)  For the IETF to have 
members, it needs to define a criteria for membership.  This opens a 
debate about "currently qualified to sit on NomCom".  Most 
organizations that have adopted the NomCom model have found it 
difficult to define a formal constituency and devise an appropriate 
structure for it.  You'll have to build in the check and balances to 
keep the authority in check.

Readers are cautioned not to draw any conclusions from the 
information below without a thorough analysis.  The following is a 
distribution by company:

          RFC authors Attendance
  Cisco     12%        6%
  Ericsson   3%        3%
  Microsoft  2%        2%
  Nokia      2%        2%
  Juniper    2%        3%
  Nortel     2%        1%
  IBM        2%        0%
  NTT        2%        2%

One or more companies might have a significant advantage in a 
membership-based organization.  There may even be an increase in 
membership as the economic factors favor some companies.  There would 
be pressure to change the model from individuals to corporate.

I don't think that the current model is perfect.  If you want to rock 
the boat, I'm all for it.  But before you do that, I'd like to have 
some assurance that the boat won't sink. :-)

Regards,
-sm

---

From: Melinda Shore <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2009 06:32:56 -0400

> simple statement like "we want an open list" is not as simple as it sounds.

Indeed.  Having elections means determining who's
eligible to vote, and that has all kinds of cascading
consequences.  A kind of funny one is that it could
provide incentives to attend meetings, which isn't
necessarily good (in the past there have been instances
of companies wanting very much to get one of their
employees on the IESG or IAB).

I'm not that crazy about publicizing nominations,
for the reasons you mention, but the pressure's been
on for a number of years to do it and it may be
worth a shot.  If MonsterCorp starts larding up the
leadership with their own employees or it turns into
a popularity contest it can be undone, but it may be
worth a shot.  Enough people feel the current
process isn't working to suggest that the current
process really isn't working.

Melinda

---

From: Harald Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2009 12:58:28 +0200

Voting has all kinds of issues.

I like the current Nomcom process because it depends on 2 things:

- A pool of qualified volunteers
- Luck in picking a nomcom that behaves sensibly (for whatever that 
means to you)

Given that luck is involved, many of the possible attacks that people 
could mount in order to gain more IETF influence won't happen - simply 
because they have a significant chance of failure. Trying, failing, and 
being detected as having tried, would be harmful to the group that tried it.

Besides, knowing that the IETF fundamentally depends on luck gives me a 
good feeling when the pomposity gets too overwhelming :-)

---

From: Dave Cridland <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2009 12:27:04 +0100

> currently qualified to sit on NOMCON to elect the IAB and ADs

A complete disaster for me, at least, since I - along with a  
substantial number of reasonably active and involved IETF  
participants - am no qualified to sit on NOMCOM.

With the current state of affairs, I can still ensure my voice is  
heard by NOMCOM, whereas with direct voting, I could not. Given the  
current climate, and particularly how it affects corporate-sponsored  
travel, I strongly suspect that there'll be many more in my boat -  
indeed, it's substantially worse for those of us not in continental  
north america anyway.

Of course, you could change the criteria, but the real critieria  
which - I assume - the NOMCOM consider how much to weigh an opinion  
is presumably on some ethereal "participation level", which is  
exceedingly difficult to measure.

FWIW, the XMPP Standards Foundation has an actual membership, who do  
actual voting. I'm deeply unconvinced it provides the best solution  
there, and I've been successfully voted in to the XMPP Council twice.  
(Which may, of course, be evidence of it not working at all, to some).

Dave.
-- 
Dave Cridland - mailto:[email-masked] - xmpp:[email-masked]
  - acap://acap.dave.cridland.net/byowner/user/dwd/bookmarks/
  - http://dave.cridland.net/
Infotrope Polymer - ACAP, IMAP, ESMTP, and Lemonade

---

From: Harald Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2009 15:22:40 +0200

Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 6:58 AM, Harald Alvestrand<[email-masked]> wrote:
>   
> Precisely the type of vague, non reason that I was complaining about.
>   
Consider the last ten years of yelling to be included by reference.
>> - Luck in picking a nomcom that behaves sensibly (for whatever that means to
>> you)
>>
>> Given that luck is involved, many of the possible attacks that people could
>> mount in order to gain more IETF influence won't happen - simply because
>> they have a significant chance of failure. Trying, failing, and being
>> detected as having tried, would be harmful to the group that tried it.
>>     
>
> The last time I was aware of anything like that happening in any
> standards group was when XrML was killed in OASIS, but the issue there
> was people opposed to DRM, not a company driven thing.
>
> Where companies want to tilt the playing field they usually have to
> start the organization to succeed. Or get in early like the XRI folk
> did with OpenID. And fat lot of good it did them.
>
>
> As a former corporate rep, I can assure you that there is precisely
> zero value in gaining the imprimatur of the IETF (or OASIS or W3C for
> that matter) if you short circuit the process. The point of standards
> participation is to get buy in from other parties you need to build
> common infrastructure.
>   
Sure. That's why Microsoft spent so much resource (and credibility) 
making sure the OOXML vote went through; they did not gain anything of 
value.
Or perhaps the value proposition is different for ISO than for the IETF.

---

From: Andrew Sullivan <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2009 09:23:04 -0400

On Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 06:32:56AM -0400, Melinda Shore wrote:

> a popularity contest it can be undone, 

I doubt that it can be undone once done.  Any attempt to undo will be
decried as an attempt to hide something, move things into smoky back
rooms, &c.  That will be especially true if it turns out that
companies who want to put resources into "getting people on the IESG"
(or whatever) are successful: they'll be able to use the same
resources to oppose changes that will undo that advantage.

This isn't to say it's a bad idea (I haven't formed an opinion), but I
do think the move towards publicising these candidacies is a one-way
door.

A

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
[email-masked]
Shinkuro, Inc.

---

From: "Doug Ewell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2009 07:51:50 -0600

Melinda Shore <melinda dot shore at gmail dot com> wrote:

> consequences.

It's a safe bet that the FSF people who show up on this list once or 
twice a year to "vote" on a proposal that they have been told to "vote" 
on, would also show up at election time to vote for or against 
candidates according to what they have been told.  That's not democracy, 
and in order to prevent it, you have to establish full formal membership 
policies.

--
Doug Ewell  *  Thornton, Colorado, USA  *  RFC 4645  *  UTN #14
http://www.ewellic.org
http://www1.ietf.org/html.charters/ltru-charter.html
http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/ietf-languages  ˆ

---

From: Melinda Shore <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2009 09:55:36 -0400

Doug Ewell wrote:
> candidates according to what they have been told.  

Not if they're ineligible.

At any rate there's no serious proposal right now to choose
I-people through direct voting, so we're heading down a
rabbit hole.  I think a more immediate question is whether or
not publishing the names of candidates will tend to lead to
election-like behavior.

Melinda

---

From: Dave Cridland <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2009 15:26:42 +0100

On Thu Jun 11 13:21:22 2009, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
> And why did XMPP leave IETF process in the first place?

And have you stopped beating your wife yet?

The XSF never followed the IETF process in the first place, and  
therefore could not leave it - I doubt many of the formers were aware  
of the Nomcom process when the Jabber Software Foundation, as it was  
then, was formed. After all, it was formed in August 2001, and the  
Jabber BOF wasn't until about a year later.

Dave.

---

From: Andrew Sullivan <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2009 11:31:43 -0400

On Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 10:34:08AM -0400, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
> The idea that we would not want to return to the current system sounds
> like an argument against the status quo, rather than in favor of it.

Again, I don't have an opinion on the draft one way or the other, but
the above strikes me as relying on an equivocation.  That "we" does
not obviously pick out the same group across the time we're talking
about.  If some people who would otherwise be engaged stop
participating because of discomfort with a more political
campaign-style leadership process, then the people who will make the
rules in the later stage are not the same ones as those who will be
adopting this change.  Moreover, those who dislike those political
campaign-style processes are unlikely to participate in one when it is
required in order to change the rules, so even if they stick around
they're unlikely to have much influence in an effort to undo the
change we're contemplating.

A

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
[email-masked]
Shinkuro, Inc.

---

From: Joe Touch <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2009 08:32:44 -0700

> eligible to vote, and that has all kinds of cascading

We already have that. The only difference is that:

- - voters are selected randomly from among those not "running for office"

- - voters are required to participate in interviews and meetings, which
may make them more informed

In the end, though, all voting systems are popularity contests.

Joe

---

From: Joe Touch <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2009 08:39:17 -0700

I am concerned about this development for several reasons:

1) exposing the full list to the entire community invites lobbying the
nomcom

	This probably already happens to some extent, but do
	we really want to encourage this?

2) exposing the willing participation of individuals for certain
position could be a disincentive

	E.g., consider someone whose current employer won't/can't
	support the level of commitment required for a position,
	and that a new employer has agreed to hire them - either
	contingent on the position or just at some point in
	the future so that they can accept the position if appointed.

	Exposing this list could expose intentions to shift
	employers, which would be a disincentive to some.

If the Nomcom cannot make this decision without wide community input
(which I tend to agree with), then we either need open lists with open
elections or we need closed lists with closed elections. I do not see
utility in mixing the two.

Joe

---

From: Joe Touch <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2009 08:59:20 -0700

Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
> The deliberative process of NOMCON means that it is more likely that
> consensus will be reached on the candidates that fewest people object
> to rather than those that have the strongest support.

Deliberation means that weak objections are as likely to be influenced
by discussions by strong supporters. I.e., deliberation can just as
easily contributes to amplification of strong support, rather than
suppression of it.

Tuning the process is fine, but let's not be deluded into thinking it
will be any better than "flawed, but sufficient". Selectees don't need
to be (further) encouraged they've been anointed by some perfect process.

We should be considering Nomcom's primary role in making the shortlist,
i.e., in making a threshold. Frankly, the community would be better
served IMO by selecting from among the shortlist using the same (random)
process used in selecting the Nomcom.

Joe

> On Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 11:32 AM, Joe Touch<[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> 
> Melinda Shore wrote:
>>>> SM wrote:
>>>>> Hi Phillip,
> - voters are selected randomly from among those not "running for office"
> 
> - voters are required to participate in interviews and meetings, which

---

From: SM <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2009 09:58:12 -0700

>process really isn't working.

It suggests that there is a perception that the current process isn't working.

At 04:51 11-06-2009, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
>One thing that struck me as a real risk is that similar concerns that
>may affect the IETF might have been ignored because of the people and
>the manner in which they were raised rather than on the merits. That
>does not make them any less of a liability.

I don't know whether there is risk or not.  It's not the manner or 
the people that raised the concerns that matters (to me).

>The current structures pretty much ensure that these issues only get
>raised by fringe elements.

I won't qualify people who raise such issues as fringe elements.  I 
believe that they are an important, and somewhat overlooked, part of 
the process.

Regards,
-sm

---

From: Stephen Kent <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2009 12:59:28 -0400

At 10:51 AM +0200 6/11/09, Lars Eggert wrote:
>Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary=Apple-Mail-5-115115602; 
>micalg=sha1; protocol="application/pkcs7-signature"
>

I also agree with this proposal, based on several experiences serving 
on NOMCOM.

Steve

---

From: Bob Hinden <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2009 11:45:51 -0700

Joe,

> 	we really want to encourage this?

It's not clear this will lead to more lobbying than we have now.  I  
think lobbying happens a lot now and is driven by the candidate him/ 
herself, or the many people who get the "secret" lists.  I think it  
would be more balanced if everyone knew.

I would add that the current system gives a greater ability to comment  
on candidates to the leadership (IAB/IESG/WG Chairs) because they get  
the many of the "secret" nomcom candidate lists.  The nomcom might get  
broader feedback if the lists are open.

Bob

---

From: Bob Hinden <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2009 12:31:54 -0700

> Actually, that raises a very good point.
>
> At present the list is neither secret, nor public. Any bad effect from
> the list being public will occur, any bad effect from it being secret
> can occur.

Right, it's a "secret" that many people know.  Better to have it be  
public.

Bob

---

From: Joe Touch <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2009 13:12:15 -0700

Bob Hinden wrote:
> think lobbying happens a lot now and is driven by the candidate
> him/herself, or the many people who get the "secret" lists.  I think it

If everyone knew, there would be more lobbying since there would be more
people participating. I doubt the direct or secret-list lobbying would
wane much as a result.
> broader feedback if the lists are open.

Yes, they might, but as I pointed out that's not the only effect.

Joe

---

From: Phillip Hallam-Baker <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2009 07:51:30 -0400

I was reading the Appeals court ruling in the VeriSign case last night
and Michael Froomkin's paper on the anti-trust issues affecting ICANN.
If you follow the logic of the Appeals court opinion it is highly
unlikely that ICANN can remain a private organization. Since the
administration already understands that ICANN is a liability, that
only leaves the ITU.

http://www.discourse.net/archives/2009/06/9th_cir_revives_com_antitrust_case.html

On Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 6:20 AM, SM<[email-masked]> wrote:
> The implications of the above is much more than publicizing the IETF list of
> nominees.  The discussion of that document highlighted how a simple
> statement like "we want an open list" is not as simple as it sounds.
>
> You can already ask for reasons.  There's even a "face the participants" at
> each IETF meeting where you can ask a question to the IAB, the IESG or a
> particular member of the body.
>
> There will always be obstacles to change.  There are advantages to having
> these obstacles or else we end up with proposals that suit the whim of the
> day.  The is also room in the current process to kick out people.
>
> Contrarian views can be labelled as the view of the fringe when they are
> only shared by a small minority.  And such views or the people holding then
> will be cast away.
>
> Although a Cisco or Microsoft faction may be counter-productive, there will
> be an incentive for factions to be formed as the proposed system provides an
> environment conducive for that.  In the new system, you'll also have to do
> away with the notion of consensus.  After all, that's not democratic.  The
> factions that will emerge in the long run are those that can use the system
> to their advantage.  When you have direct elections, you cannot aim for long
> term goals as the people expect immediate results.  Or else you won't stand
> a chance when you put your name up for reelection.
>
> For some, yes.  As someone on this mailing list put it, we are guided by our
> interests.  The new system will only amplify that.  The rule of the majority
> is only effective if there is participation.  We only have to look at the
> amount of participation in here to see that there will always be a silent
> majority which only springs to life when a narrowly focused issue captures
> their attention.
>
> You get the amount of consideration you deserve.  If you behave like a serf,
> you will be considered as one. :-)  For the IETF to have members, it needs
> to define a criteria for membership.  This opens a debate about "currently
> qualified to sit on NomCom".  Most organizations that have adopted the
> NomCom model have found it difficult to define a formal constituency and
> devise an appropriate structure for it.  You'll have to build in the check
> and balances to keep the authority in check.
>
> Readers are cautioned not to draw any conclusions from the information below
> without a thorough analysis.  The following is a distribution by company:
>
>         RFC authors Attendance
>  Cisco     12%        6%
>  Ericsson   3%        3%
>  Microsoft  2%        2%
>  Nokia      2%        2%
>  Juniper    2%        3%
>  Nortel     2%        1%
>  IBM        2%        0%
>  NTT        2%        2%
>
> membership-based organization.  There may even be an increase in membership
> as the economic factors favor some companies.  There would be pressure to
> change the model from individuals to corporate.
>
> I don't think that the current model is perfect.  If you want to rock the
> boat, I'm all for it.  But before you do that, I'd like to have some
> assurance that the boat won't sink. :-)
>
> Regards,
> -sm
>

---

From: Phillip Hallam-Baker <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2009 08:21:22 -0400

On Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 7:27 AM, Dave Cridland<[email-masked]> wrote:
> A complete disaster for me, at least, since I - along with a substantial
> number of reasonably active and involved IETF participants - am no qualified
> to sit on NOMCOM.
>
> With the current state of affairs, I can still ensure my voice is heard by
> NOMCOM, whereas with direct voting, I could not. Given the current climate,
> and particularly how it affects corporate-sponsored travel, I strongly
> suspect that there'll be many more in my boat - indeed, it's substantially
> worse for those of us not in continental north america anyway.
>
> Of course, you could change the criteria, but the real critieria which - I
> assume - the NOMCOM consider how much to weigh an opinion is presumably on
> some ethereal "participation level", which is exceedingly difficult to
> measure.
>
> FWIW, the XMPP Standards Foundation has an actual membership, who do actual
> voting. I'm deeply unconvinced it provides the best solution there, and I've
> been successfully voted in to the XMPP Council twice. (Which may, of course,
> be evidence of it not working at all, to some).
>
> Dave.
> --

---

From: Phillip Hallam-Baker <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2009 09:02:02 -0400

---

From: Phillip Hallam-Baker <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2009 10:06:58 -0400

Yelling? How about reasoned arguments.

ISO standards are merely accreditations, like getting your facilities
ISO9000 certified. The criteria for getting an ISO accreditation is no
more than documenting your specification and surrendering change
control. Word was a de-facto industry standard, there was absolutely
no justification for not accepting it as an ISO standard.

The game the ODF side was attempting to play was to get various
governments to insert support for open standards into procurement
contracts and then ensure that only the ODF format was allowed to
become a specification. That is not a strategy I consider to be
ethical. If they had been lobbying corporations rather than government
entities it would be a very clear anti-trust violation.

Playing that type of game in ISO does not have anti-trust issues as
they have recognition as an international treaty organization. But
playing the same game in IETF would lead to serious lawsuits. What
sound like quaint customs inside the IETF would likely sound rather
different in court under cross examination by plaintiff's counsel. Do
you want to explain to m'lud how the issue was decided on a hum?

On Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 9:22 AM, Harald Alvestrand<[email-masked]> wrote:
>>> could
> Sure. That's why Microsoft spent so much resource (and credibility) making
> sure the OOXML vote went through; they did not gain anything of value.

---

From: Phillip Hallam-Baker <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2009 10:34:08 -0400

To answer Melinda, yes, the FSF would probably try to get a person
onto the IAB. Let us imagine that they did so. Either the person is a
raving lunatic, in which case all that happens is that the effective
membership of the IAB drops by one, or they are sensible. If they are
sensible they would almost certainly end up being co-opted and end up
exporting our world view to the FSF.

---

From: Phillip Hallam-Baker <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2009 11:42:47 -0400

On Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 11:32 AM, Joe Touch<[email-masked]> wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
>
>
> Melinda Shore wrote:
>> SM wrote:
>>> Hi Phillip,
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32)
> Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
>
> iEYEARECAAYFAkoxI5wACgkQE5f5cImnZrtsvwCfduYzOIzSe5WBKPMW7Faiw48v
> VMsAoKZlZRGzIsPhwj9NIJt2FfjjNM3O
> =eV6t
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>

---

From: Phillip Hallam-Baker <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2009 15:01:15 -0400

On Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 2:45 PM, Bob Hinden<[email-masked]> wrote:
> It's not clear this will lead to more lobbying than we have now.  I think
> lobbying happens a lot now and is driven by the candidate him/herself, or
> the many people who get the "secret" lists.  I think it would be more
> balanced if everyone knew.
>
> I would add that the current system gives a greater ability to comment on
> candidates to the leadership (IAB/IESG/WG Chairs) because they get the many
> of the "secret" nomcom candidate lists.  The nomcom might get broader
> feedback if the lists are open.
>
> Bob
>
>

---

From: Marshall Eubanks <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2009 19:21:35 -0400

> the list being public will occur, any bad effect from it being secret

I think that that is a "deep truth," since

1,$s/bad/good/

is also true.

Regards
Marshall

>> think

---

From: Stephen Kent <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2009 16:35:08 -0400

Joe,

Having served on NOMCOM more than once, and having been solicited for 
inputs every year, I much prefer publishing the names of folks have 
consented to be considered for IAB and IESG positions.  The addition 
of "ringers" to lists that are sent out (to hide the identities of 
the true candidates) wastes the time of a lot of folks who are asked 
to provide feedback on these non-candidates. It also means that 
someone who is a real candidate may not receive feedback because 
people assume the individual is a ringer!

Steve

---

From: Joe Touch <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2009 17:39:37 -0700

I do not debate the utility to the Nomcom of this change.

I believe it comes with a cost, and I do not agree that it is a simple
decision. I do not agree that the Nomcom is the only party here worth
consideration.

Joe

Stephen Kent wrote:
> consented to be considered for IAB and IESG positions.  The addition of
> "ringers" to lists that are sent out (to hide the identities of the true
> candidates) wastes the time of a lot of folks who are asked to provide
> feedback on these non-candidates. It also means that someone who is a
> real candidate may not receive feedback because people assume the
> individual is a ringer!
> 
> Steve

---

From: Joe Touch <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 12 Jun 2009 09:49:30 -0700

Russ White wrote:
> I don't think you'll get any more lobbying than you get now. The point
> of the nomcom being people, rather than a simple vote, is to filter out
> this sort of lobbying, because it's going to happen either way.

Having only the Nomcom decide amplifies lobbying, because the effort can
be concentrated on a small set of voters. A similar effect happened last
year in the US when the effect of a popular vote was insufficient to
select a Democratic party nominee. Rather than lobbying the general
public, effort was focused on "superdelagates" whose vote was not tied
to the general public. (yes, this is simplified, but I hope the point is
taken).

> The question is: Is the nomcom better at filtering out lobbying, or
> failures to get effective feedback because we're trying to keep
> something "secret?" After serving on the nomcom three times, I can
> easily say more feedback is better, and I'd rather work at weeding out
> lobbying--which I must do anyway--than to try and fix lack of feedback,
> or make "educated guesses."

Again, I agree that this is better for the Nomcom. The questions are:

	1- is this better for the pool of applicants
		or does being on a public list provide
		a reason not to offer to serve?

	2- is this better for the IETF as a whole
		does the Nomcom actually come to a
		better decision as a result?

I've shown specific impact to #1 above.

The Nomcom does NOT select the best person for each position. They
select the best person _available_, using a set criteria that at least
partly bias their decision to avoid controversy (what if *all* the
selected nominees were from Canada in one year?), as influenced by
whatever lobbying occurs to re-bias that decision.

Making the list public changes all these factors, but does not clearly
make the decision more reliable when considered as a whole.

Joe

---

From: Russ White <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 12 Jun 2009 12:39:40 -0400

:-)

Russ

---

From: Russ White <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 12 Jun 2009 12:58:05 -0400

> 		a reason not to offer to serve?

There is also the opposite effect--being nominated is an honor which is
removed if the list is kept secret. You will probably see the two offset
one another. Further, trying to account for every possible psychological
reaction, and wind around it, is eventually going to be an impossible task.

> 		better decision as a result?

I believe so.

> make the decision more reliable when considered as a whole.

IMHO, it does make the decision more reliable, simply because the
publicity of the list encourages those who have something to say to
actually say it. If you see the complete list, and feel you know someone
who would do better than anyone there, then you are more likely to
nominate them, than to nominate people blindly.

Lack of information is being much more of a hinder than too much
information at the moment.

:-)

Russ

---

From: Lixia Zhang <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 15 Jun 2009 20:09:46 -0700

> would be more balanced if everyone knew.

Belated, I too agree that the change to publicizing nominee list is a  
better way for the community.

> I would add that the current system gives a greater ability to  
> comment on candidates to the leadership (IAB/IESG/WG Chairs) because  
> they get the many of the "secret" nomcom candidate lists.

well, the names they got were also padded up for the "protection"  
purpose, and the padding caused some confusions too.

>  The nomcom might get broader feedback if the lists are open.
>
> Bob

well said.

Lixia