Subject: Fw: Last Call: draft-dawkins-nomcom-openlist (Nominating Committee Process: Open Disclosure of Willing Nominees) to BCP

From: "Spencer Dawkins" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 9 Jun 2009 15:32:54 -0500

Brian Carpenter had a Last Call comment that I needed to follow up on...

> Hi,
>
> (IETF list not copied as I'm on leave and minimising email, but
> there is nothing confidential about this comment.)
>
>>       Feedback on nominees should always be provided privately to
>>       NomCom.  Nominees should not solicit support, and other IETF
>>       community members should not post statements of support/
>>       non-support for nominees in any public forum.
>
> I believe these three occurrences of 'should' need to be 'must'.
> I don't think there should be any wiggle room on this point.
>
>    Brian

Russ thinks I should check on this with the rest of the community, so I'm 
asking for feedback now.

Thanks,

Spencer

---

From: "Joel M. Halpern" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 09 Jun 2009 16:42:27 -0400

While philosophically I agree with Brian, practically I have to disagree.
My reasoning is that while we don't want that sort of thing to happen, 
the only enforcement mechanism is what the nomcom chooses to do.  And 
while I would hope that they would consider such misbehavior a negative, 
I don't think that, to take an extreme example, one minor mis-comment in 
the wrong place should disqualify the nominee the nomcom strongly prefers.

So I am not sure what making this a MUST would do.
(In terms of IETF wording, it would be a MUST because there is no 
circumstance under which a compliant implementation, aka person, would 
do that.  But writing it that way does not seem to help us.)

Joel

Spencer Dawkins wrote:
> Russ thinks I should check on this with the rest of the community, so 
> I'm asking for feedback now.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Spencer
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Ietf mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
>

---

From: Jari Arkko <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2009 00:06:19 +0300

I had an orthogonal question.

Should I read

> Nominees should not solicit support, and other IETF community members 
> should not post statements of support/non-support for nominees in any 
> public forum.

as

(Nominees should not solicit support), and (other IETF community members 
should not post statements of support/non-support for nominees in any 
public forum).

or as

(Nominees should not solicit support, and other IETF community members 
should not post statements of support/non-support for nominees) in any 
public forum.

I think you mean the latter.

Also, what if we had an open feedback discussion on an area or chairs 
list, for instance, unrelated to the nomcom process? What's going 
well/what's not going well sort of discussion? Would that be breaking 
against the rules above?

Jari

---

From: "Spencer Dawkins" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 9 Jun 2009 16:13:46 -0500

Hi Jari,

Ya know, I was looking at that text thinking the same thing...

> I think you mean the latter.

I do, too. 

Thanks,

Spencer

---

From: "Doug Ewell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 9 Jun 2009 19:37:04 -0600

Spencer Dawkins <spencer at wonderhamster dot org> wrote:

>> (Nominees should not solicit support, and other IETF community
>> members should not post statements of support/non-support for
>> nominees) in any public forum.
>>

A comma before "in" would probably do the job.

--
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: Harald Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2009 13:12:39 +0200

I support the use of "should".

---

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2009 13:42:52 +0200

I support changing these to "must". 

We don't of course have any mechanisms to enforce this (especially
discussions by other IETF community members on non-IETF mailing
lists)... but currently, asking people to treat nominee lists *as if*
they were confidential (even though they were not) has had the effect
of preventing public discussions about the candidates (on e.g.
[email-masked] mailing list).

I don't think such discussions would be helpful for the goals
of the NomCom process (or the IETF in general), and I think the
document should send a clear message that they're not acceptable
in the future either (instead of leaving wiggle room that they 
might be OK in some circumstances).
 
Best regards,
Pasi

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of
> ext Spencer Dawkins
> Sent: 09 June, 2009 23:33
> To: [email-masked]
> Cc: [email-masked]
> Subject: Fw: Last Call: draft-dawkins-nomcom-openlist (Nominating
> Committee Process: Open Disclosure of Willing Nominees) to BCP
>