Subject: Re: Possible extra "oral tradition" for draft-ietf-nomcom-rfc2727bis-01.txt

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 14 Jul 2002 21:08:33 -0400

--On Sunday, 14 July, 2002 15:38 -0700 Matt Holdrege
<[email-masked]> wrote:

> There is procedure and all nomcom members are watched by each
> other, the chair and the liaisons. So while nomcom members have
> free will in their deliberations, they do not have freedom to
> act outside of procedures.
> 
> It is essential to protect the freedom of the nomcom when it
> comes to making choices. We don't "ignore everything and do
> what we want". Rather we listen to everything and *then* vote
> as we please. The  process ensures that we are presented with
> as many data points as we can get. After that, it's all in the
> hands of individual consciences.
> 
> Given the above (if you will), what needs to change?
> Democracies do not ensure that you will get what you want. So,
> unless you want to eliminate democracy or move to an unworkable
> form of democracy (we create membership and we all vote), I
> don't see what we can change?

We have a two-stage process, in which the nomcom produces
recommendations for confirming bodies to review and act on.  The
clearer we are about expectations about how the nomcom makes
decisions and what is (and is not) appropriate, the better
framework we have for review and dialog between the confirming
bodies and the nomcom.  

To the extent to which such guidelines do not exist, the process
of review by the confirming bodies tends to deteriorate into
"this doesn't seem right, are you sure?" and "we will, more or
less enthusiastically, go through the motions of whatever
additional review you ask for, but there is no chance that we
will actually reconsider" interactions.  We've seen what appears
to be that pattern on and off over the years, and it doesn't seem
to me to be healthy.

    john

---

From: Matt Holdrege <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 14 Jul 2002 22:05:45 -0700

>framework we have for review and dialog between the confirming

The nomcom does make a report to the confirming body and it should inform 
the confirming body about how it followed the procedure. Of course nomcom 
cannot go into detail of why each member voted the way they did. I hope no 
one is suggesting that?!?  As for what is appropriate, that is already 
detailed in RFC 2727. If the confirming body doesn't like the nomcom 
report, it can and should relate it's concerns to the nomcom email list.

>to be that pattern on and off over the years, and it doesn't seem

People can say "I'm not changing my mind", but there is no point in 
worrying about that until they actually see the concerns or evidence. We 
can say we prefer person X over person Y based on all the data points we 
have received so far. If the confirming body claims to have more data 
points that might sway the vote, then it should present them ASAP and let 
the nomcom review them. But basically you've put yourself in the nomcom's 
hands and you have to hope they do right. With the breadth of people on the 
nomcom plus chair and liaison's, I doubt you'll ever see anything go 
horribly wrong.

---

From: "Joel M. Halpern" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 15 Jul 2002 14:15:33 -0400

One of the reasons why I at least would like to see names available 
earlier, and more feedback to the nomcom about people earlier is that some 
of this apparent intransigence (to use a prejudicial description) is human 
nature.  By the time the nomcom has worked its way through the tough job it 
has, and managed to come to agreement on a slate of candidates, the members 
have spent a lot of time and energy on this.  As a consequence, there is 
going to be very strong natural resistance to changing the plan.  This is 
not to insult the members or imply that they are deliberately refusing to 
cooperate.  It is a natural consequence of the way human beings react once 
they have reached tough decisions.

The corollary in my mind is that input which we want to have considered 
needs to get in before the final slate of candidates is selected by the nomcom.

Yours,
Joel M. Halpern

At 10:05 PM 7/14/2002 -0700, Matt Holdrege wrote:
>hands and you have to hope they do right. With the breadth of people on 
>the nomcom plus chair and liaison's, I doubt you'll ever see anything go 
>horribly wrong.
>
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------
>To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription
>manager: <http://lists.elistx.com/subscribe>

---

From: Robert Elz <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 15 Jul 2002 16:23:06 +0900

Date:        Mon, 15 Jul 2002 14:15:33 -0400
    From:        "Joel M. Halpern" <[email-masked]>
    Message-ID:  <[email-masked]>

  | One of the reasons why I at least would like to see names available 
  | earlier, and more feedback to the nomcom about people earlier is that some 
  | of this apparent intransigence (to use a prejudicial description) is human 
  | nature.

I certainly understand this - but I'm not sure how seeing a list of names
can change anything.   If you have comments to make for or against any
possible candidates (or nominees, whichever it is) you should be giving
the nomcom that information anyway.   Regardless of whether you do, or don't,
see their name on some list.

Apart from providing some kind of wakeup to members of the community who
should be commenting, but don't bother, but still want to complain that
they really wanted to comment after all (which isn't a problem I'd bother
fixing at all), what does publishing the list actually accomplish?

kre

---

From: Scott Brim <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 15 Jul 2002 16:44:44 +0900

> fixing at all), what does publishing the list actually accomplish?

To me that's enough, because what you're asking just isn't going to
happen.  You can't expect people to be supremely virtuous and send in
all comments, positive and negative, on all possible candidates, without
any prompting.

...Scott

---

From: Matt Holdrege <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 15 Jul 2002 08:03:47 -0700

At 11:15 AM 7/15/2002, Joel M. Halpern wrote:
>nature.  By the time the nomcom has worked its way through the tough job 
>it has, and managed to come to agreement on a slate of candidates, the 
>members have spent a lot of time and energy on this.  As a consequence, 
>there is going to be very strong natural resistance to changing the 
>plan.  This is not to insult the members or imply that they are 
>deliberately refusing to cooperate.  It is a natural consequence of the 
>way human beings react once they have reached tough decisions.

It's true that nomcom will be resistant to change for the reason you've 
suggested. But the nomcom will have already solicited input from as many 
people as it sees fit. Getting more input is either redundant or it comes 
from sources that the nomcom doesn't necessarily trust.

>needs to get in before the final slate of candidates is selected by the nomcom.

The process in RFC 2727 already ensures that. The only thing that fails 
significantly in this process is that the people who *should* be giving 
feedback do not for various reasons including lack of cycles.

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 15 Jul 2002 17:50:48 +0200

Matt,

...
> But the nomcom will have already solicited input from as many 

But this is exactly the point. If the confirming body is worrying whether
NomCom has listened to everybody that they needed to, we are in the space
where what the NomCom "sees fit" and deciding that more input is
"redundant" are exactly the points at issue. 

   Brian

---

From: Matt Holdrege <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 15 Jul 2002 09:00:48 -0700

>"redundant" are exactly the points at issue.

OK, so we are still at the point where some people may disagree with the 
view of the nomcom. But as long as nomcom follows procedure and listens to 
their chair and liaisons (which they must), the rest is up to the 
consciences of the nomcom members. How can you change that? If 30 people 
tell me the same thing, I probably will judge that information as 
redundant. What possible policy could change that?

Also we are relying on nomcom members and their chair/liaison support to 
make sure we get the right input. If ten well respected IETF leaders favor 
person X, and someone from outside the IETF mainstream say that person X is 
bad because they didn't like their draft, most nomcom members have the good 
sense to lean towards the 10 respected IETF leaders. What possible policy 
could change that?

---

From: "Joel M. Halpern" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 16 Jul 2002 08:38:26 -0400

It has been observed over many years that unless people are asked they tend 
to be reluctant to provide input.  I am making the presumption that the 
absence of names excacerbates this problem, and that making names available 
will at least give people some ideas of what topics (people) it might be 
helpful to provide feedback on.

The reason that the nomcom now goes and asks a set of people is that 
earlier nomcoms did not even do that.  The set of people that was / is 
suggested to the nomcom to contact is not expect / understood to be 
comprehensive.  It was (at the time, and still is as far as I can tell) the 
only list that is not absurdly large and is well defined.  (Telling the 
nomcom "talk to more people" is not in and of itself a helpful suggestions.)

It is not possible for the nomcom to find on its own all the people who 
legiitmately have helpful input.  The premise that extra input (before 
minds are made up) can not possibly be helpful seems unlikely to be accurate.

Yours,
Joel M. Halpern

At 08:03 AM 7/15/2002 -0700, Matt Holdrege wrote:
>>earlier, and more feedback to the nomcom about people earlier is that 
>>some of this apparent intransigence (to use a prejudicial description) is 
>>human nature.  By the time the nomcom has worked its way through the 
>>tough job it has, and managed to come to agreement on a slate of 
>>candidates, the members have spent a lot of time and energy on this.  As 
>>a consequence, there is going to be very strong natural resistance to 
>>changing the plan.  This is not to insult the members or imply that they 
>>are deliberately refusing to cooperate.  It is a natural consequence of 
>>the way human beings react once they have reached tough decisions.
>

---

From: Theodore Ts'o <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 15 Jul 2002 21:39:34 -0400

> nomcom "talk to more people" is not in and of itself a helpful suggestions.)

One observation: if the list of nomines is supposedly "secret", and
the nomcom is sending a (partially blinded) list to a very large set
of people, at what point is it so close to "public" that it might as
well be fully public?  It certainly is less effort than trying to
create this very large list of inviduals to ask.

In some cases, the very large list was "all working group chairs and
all authors of any I-D's in a particular area" --- minus people whose
e-mail address had changed (say, due to @home's sudden shutdown).
This is a very large list, and so after a partially blinded list is
sent to such a large list of people, it might as well be public, I
would argue.  And yet, there were some people who didn't manage to get
their opinions solicited via this process, and in some cases, they did
step forward and whine a lot.  

(By the way: it is a myth is that the nomcom can in any way bind the
people from whom they solicit opinions that they not pass the list on
any further.  The nomcom can request this, of course, but there is
legally binding way to make this requirement --- and in fact the only
requirement is upon the nomcom members and the confirming bodies.
Nominees and people from whom opinions are solicited are currently
free to say anything they want to the entire world.)

> minds are made up) can not possibly be helpful seems unlikely to be 

I couldn't agree more.

						- Ted

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 16 Jul 2002 10:12:14 +0200

below...

> sense to lean towards the 10 respected IETF leaders. What possible policy

I can't really give a hypothetical example without some people being able
to work out the real case I'm thinking of. But it has certainly happened
that the NomCom, for whatever reason, has *definitely* failed to consult
specific people that clearly should have been consulted about a particular
case. Not because NomCom was evil, of course; they just didn't happen to
be omniscient. My considered opinion is that a longer and more frank dialogue
between the NomCom and the confirming body would allow such oversights
to be fixed up, but indeed it's hard to make "policy" about this (see
the subject line of this thread - I specifically did not suggest more
rules beyond stretching the timescale).

  Brian

---

From: Matt Holdrege <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 16 Jul 2002 08:33:56 -0700

>rules beyond stretching the timescale).

Fair enough. I'm certainly willing to accept that there have been 
human-error problems with nomcom in the past. All that tells me is that 
Chair and Liaison selection is very, very important. At least one of the 
Liaisons has the ability to talk to the confirming body. They ought to be 
able to communicate the needs of nomcom effectively without violating the 
privacy requirements of RFC 2727.