Subject: RE: Nomcom candidate name announcement alternatives

From: David Allan <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 16 Jul 2002 21:58:56 -0400

I agree with the "comments private" part. The goal is to solicit feedback,
not debate. It is not the role of the commenters to correct what others say.
The idea is to provide the NOMCOM with sufficient sources of information
that potential malicious misinformation can be spotted. I would expect all
feedback provided to the NOMCOM to be confidential, and I get the feeling
not everyone beleives this would happen.

cheers
Dave

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Russ White [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Tuesday, July 16, 2002 8:55 PM
> To: Steve Silverman
> Cc: John C Klensin; Joel M. Halpern; [email-masked]
> Subject: RE: Nomcom candidate name announcement alternatives
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, I disagree.... My take on the last nomcom process was
> that many people thought we didn't take in enough input, and
> others thought we we took in too much (in terms of asking so many
> people that the confidentiality was lost). My suggestion would be
> thus:
> 
> -- Publish the list of people nominated. I don't know whether
> this list should be before or after people have accepted (stated
> they are willing to serve). Actually, I don't see that it makes
> much difference which list this is, as long as it is _before_ any
> "weeding" by the nomcom.
> 
> -- Create a simple web page where people may post comments about
> this list, or simply create a "public comment" mailing alias. But
> whatever comments there are, only the person making them, and
> members of the nomcom, would know the comments which are made. Do
> not make the comments themselves public. This resolves the issue
> of public debate, since there are no public records to debate
> about, only open and free input.
> 
> -- The nomcom would publicly request that certain people provide
> feedback into whatever mechanism was provided.
> 
> -- The nomcom would have, on the back end, some form of a
> threaded (by candidate and position) "forum" where comments from
> outside the nomcom are published (this is where a web page for
> public input would actually be preferrable).
> 
> You could keep the list public, and the comments private. It's
> done all the time, and it's critical to many processes. The
> nomcom members should be smart enough to figure out how much
> weight to put on comments by various people--comments in all
> cases should not be anonymous.
> 
> Russ
> 
> On Tue, 16 Jul 2002, Steve Silverman wrote:
> 
> > It seems to me that once a list of people is published, 
> there are going to
> > be comments made about
> > some of them.  Once some comments are made, others will 
> want to respond and
> > will want to "correct" what they perceive as false 
> allegations.  If you
> > forbid the use of regular lists, you make it harder to 
> correct "accidental
> > misstatements".   If you want a public process, you have to 
> accept public
> > debate and comments.  It can't be only partly public.  I 
> don't think there
> > is any way to limit such debate.
> > 
> > It is clear to me that there are many wildly differing 
> opinions on this
> > subject. I do not think there is any possibility of any sort of real
> > consensus and it seems to me that no change is possible at 
> the present time.
> > There are fundamental questions about the Internet and the governing
> > authority that have not been addressed and are not likely 
> to be addressed.
> > The Nomcom is a minor aspect of these questions.
> > 
> > Steve Silverman
> > 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: John C Klensin [mailto:[email-masked]]
> > Sent: Tuesday, July 16, 2002 6:52 PM
> > To: Joel M. Halpern; [email-masked]
> > Subject: Re: Nomcom candidate name announcement alternatives
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > --On Tuesday, 16 July, 2002 15:39 -0400 "Joel M. Halpern"
> > <[email-masked]> wrote:
> > 
> > > There is an interesting implication here that I had missed.
> > >
> > > The phrasing of these points raises the spectre of public
> > > discussion (on IETF lists) about the published individuals.  If
> > > this is likely, it would then lead almost inevitably lead to
> > > politicising the environment.  This is very bad.
> > >
> > > However, rather than concluding that we should not publish the
> > > names, I conclude that we should put in a very strong policy
> > > prohibiting this discussion on any IETF list.  While this would
> > > not stop all discussion, it should be sufficient to prevent
> > > serious politicing.
> > >
> > > (And those who color me naive for not having seen this problem
> > > sooner can chortle quietly.  But publish anyway.)
> > 
> > Joel,
> > 
> > It seems to me that this suggestion is sensible (or not)
> > independent of whether the names are published (under the
> > proposed scenario or some other one).
> > 
> >     john
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------
> > To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription
> > manager: <http://lists.elistx.com/subscribe>
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------
> > To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription
> > manager: <http://lists.elistx.com/subscribe>
> > 
> 
> __________________________________
> [email-masked] CCIE <>< Grace Alone
> 
> 
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription
> manager: <http://lists.elistx.com/subscribe>
>

---

From: Robert Elz <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 17 Jul 2002 11:33:47 +0900

Date:        Tue, 16 Jul 2002 21:58:56 -0400
    From:        David Allan <[email-masked]>
    Message-ID:  <[email-masked]>

  | I would expect all
  | feedback provided to the NOMCOM to be confidential, and I get the feeling
  | not everyone beleives this would happen.

I think you misunderstood that particular point.   It isn't that the
nomcom would suddenly start leaking (a lot more) but that there would
quite possibly be a lot of feedback provided to the community, rather
than just to the nomcom.   That is, messages of the form "X is hopeless,
made a mess of the zzz WG when chair, ..." sent to the ietf list (and
possibly additionally the nomcom list).   Which would then elicit a
response from someone who was very happy with the zzz WG ...

kre

---

From: Scott Brim <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 17 Jul 2002 13:38:50 +0900

At lunch I was told about different cultures and their opinions about
what constitutes success/failure, with regard to someone having his/her
name published.  As a result, well, I'm still in favor of publishing the
list, but Avri's suggestion of being able to opt out is important.  We
should consider whether the default is to publish a name (which the
nominee can opt out of) or to not publish a name (but send a request to
do so to the nominee).

...Scott

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 17 Jul 2002 13:57:39 +0900

(my summary attempted to be a neutral reporting.  when I modify that text, 
i'll put the neutral hat back on.  but not until then...)\

At 01:38 PM 7/17/2002 +0900, Scott Brim wrote:
>Avri's suggestion of being able to opt out is important.  We

We need to respect different cultures, yes.  However that is different from 
saying that we must try to be comfortable to all cultures.  The attempt to 
adapt to everyone all the time leads to process and culture mush.  No 
coherence.

Letting candidates define the rules is just plain bad.

Either the community feels that we need to publish names or the community 
feels we do not.  One rule for everyone.

d/

ps.  specifications that try to please everyone wind up pleasing no 
one.  we have learned that from other standards bodies.  the lesson applies 
here, as well.

----------
Dave Crocker  <mailto:[email-masked]>
Brandenburg InternetWorking  <http://www.brandenburg.com>
tel +1.408.246.8253;  fax +1.408.850.1850

---

From: Loa Andersson <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 17 Jul 2002 08:59:35 +0200

Dave Crocker wrote:

> 
> We need to respect different cultures, yes.  However that is different 
> from saying that we must try to be comfortable to all cultures.  The 
> attempt to adapt to everyone all the time leads to process and culture 
> mush.  No coherence.

so far I haven't seen any claims that maintaining status quo is a
problem within any culture, but several claiming that it will be
for some cultures

/Loa

> Either the community feels that we need to publish names or the 
> community feels we do not.  One rule for everyone.
> 
> d/
> 
> one.  we have learned that from other standards bodies.  the lesson 
> applies here, as well.
> 
> ----------

-- 
     Loa Andersson
     Chief Architect,
     Utfors Research, Architecture and Future Lab (URAX)
     Utfors AB
     Råsundavägen 12
     Box 525, 169 29 Solna
     Office          +46 8 5270 2000
     Office direct   +46 8 5270 5038
     Mobile          +46 70 848 5038
     Email           [email-masked]
     WWW             www.utfors.se

---

From: Scott Brim <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 17 Jul 2002 16:22:47 +0900

> feels we do not.  One rule for everyone.

Dave, are you attempting to set up a highly polarized situation in order
to more easily knock down the (pushed to extreme) alternative you don't
like?  No need to confuse the goals with the mechanisms.  The idea of
publishing names already makes everyone somewhat uncomfortable.  I was
told that comfort isn't the issue, dishonor is.  It's okay to seek a
balance.

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 17 Jul 2002 16:35:59 +0900

>problem within any culture, but several claiming that it will be

Wearing my 'objective reporter' hat for a moment, I believe this suggest 
that I need to add a CON, to the ALL entry, suggesting that disclosure 
risks running contrary to some cultures.

With my reporter hat OFF:

The issue of other cultures strikes me as simply one of the many different 
issues we must juggle.

I have stated my own preference and why, but have been told it got 
missed.  So here it is explicitly:

The nomcom does not need more information at the early stages.  It already 
gets plenty.  And I do not believe for one second that it needs to be told 
additional names for candidates.  Anyone who is serious and available gets 
mentioned.  Someone will mention them to nomcom.

The nomcom process of surveying the community is not merely extensive.  It 
is massive.  Nomcom finds out the basics about all the candidates.  The 
fact that nomcom might not talk to one or another particular person that 
someone thinks is essential is a concern that I do not find 
compelling.  Nomcom talks to lots and lots of people.  The idea that a 
single person has highly special insight into a candidate is something we 
should find troubling.  That gives that one person too much leverage over a 
candidacy.

The purpose of disclosure of the names is to make sure that everyone who 
might have relevant information gets the opportunity to provide it.

There are two, pragmatic and real benefits that might accrue from 
publication of names:

1.  We no longer have to worry about missing input.  Worrying about 
nomcom's missing input is a real issue today.  As I said, I do not believe 
this concern is valid, but the confirming bodies and the community are not 
convinced that nomcom's information is adequate, and it is essential that 
the confirming bodies and the community be comfortable.

2.  Every once in awhile, someone DOES have an interesting tidbit to add to 
the mix of knowledge about a candidate.  These tidbits can add texture and 
flavor to the picture of a candidate and that enhanced information can 
improve the ability to resolve subtle concerns and close choices.

So, I tend to prefer publishing the list of candidates that make the final 
cut.  That will permit enough time for people with important insight to 
provide it.  It also will limit the public exposure to the very few people 
who are in final contention to hold a public position that requires they 
have a tough hide.  And it permits nomcom to use the information 
efficiently.  It doesn't carry the process trauma that comes with having to 
reverse a selection.

d/

----------

---

From: Scott Brim <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 17 Jul 2002 16:45:52 +0900

> the confirming bodies and the community be comfortable.

Right.  The peasants may be revolting, but if we're going to be true to
our principles we need to acknowledge their existence.  Alternatively we
could change our principles.

> efficiently.  It doesn't carry the process trauma that comes with having to 

But this doesn't satisfy either #1 or #2.  Re #1, 'the people' would
still feel ignored.  Re #2, If you're going to use these rare tidbits to
"resolve subtle concerns and close choices", you need them before you
make those choices.  

... Scott, in just about the middle of the IPsec room.

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 17 Jul 2002 16:47:07 +0900

>told that comfort isn't the issue, dishonor is.  It's okay to seek a

Scott, I am attempting to keep things simple and useful.  We are trying to 
define a procedure and we all know that complicated, contingent procedures 
don't work well.

In the case of human processes, it is particularly bad to give over control 
of an evaluation mechanism to the person being evaluated.  Allowing a 
candidate to opt-in or -out of the disclosure process gives them a control 
of the community feedback process.  That is a very bad idea.

With respect to different cultures, we need to do our best to be 
respectful, but we need to be respectful in a way that does not cripple our 
ability to do work.

The issue of dishonor is clearly important.  On the other hand, we have our 
own culture and anyone who holds one of our public offices is already going 
to have to work within a culture that is highly at odds with many other 
cultures -- for example, many of the asian cultures, many of the other 
standards bodies cultures, etc.

For those making procedural suggestions that are sensitive to culture, let 
me ask:  Do the people in any of those cultures have open elections?  Are 
the losers publicly known?  I believe the answer is yes.

d/

----------

---

From: Scott Brim <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 17 Jul 2002 16:49:31 +0900

> the losers publicly known?  I believe the answer is yes.

Point.  I'll try to get more specifics.

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 17 Jul 2002 17:00:52 +0900

At 04:45 PM 7/17/2002 +0900, Scott Brim wrote:
>...
>...

Hmmm.  Maybe the meaning of 'final cut' isn't clear.

Let me be explicit:  The nomcom usually does a round of review and culling, 
taking the original list of names and using the acquired input to bring 
list list down to a few candidates for each position.  (I'm trying to be 
generic here, rather than state specific details.  The details vary from 
one nomcom to the next.  However the process and milestone of producing a 
small, final set of candidates seems to be universal.)

So, It satisfies #1 by providing a window of time for folks to 
response.  While the nomcom is  doing the final round of considerations, it 
the community has time for providing those interesting tidbits.

It satisfies #2 because those tidbits can affect the choice of one final 
candidate over another final candidate.  (My claim is that such tidbits are 
very unlikely to affect the choices for the final list, but that they are 
quite useful for the subtle considerations that are needed for choosing 
among the final candidates.)

d/

... in the middle of opsarea consideration of xml vs. snmp.

----------

---

From: Russ White <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 17 Jul 2002 07:49:42 -0400 (EDT)

But--there's nothing stopping people from doing that today, given
how many people receive requests for feedback, and how poorly the
list of people is hidden. I think we ended up asking for feedback
from more than 50 or 60 people on each candidate in this cycle,
and it wasn't enough to stop questions from a lot of quarters
about not enough feedback.

Three people can keep a secret if two of them are dead. What
about 50?

:-)

Russ

---

From: Scott Bradner <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 17 Jul 2002 04:09:25 -0400 (EDT)

somone should check to see if privacy laws in Europe (for example)
would rule out being able to post names w/o the ability for
an individual to opt out

(i.e. its not all culture)

Scott

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 17 Jul 2002 21:23:38 +0900

>(i.e. its not all culture)

Is the IETF subject to the union of the laws from all the countries that 
have participants in our activities?

If the answer is no -- as I suspect it is -- then we need to know what kind 
of effect our rules have on people from countries that have rules in 
conflict with ours.

If the answer is yes, we need to know how to reconcile rules from different 
countries that conflict with each other.

d/

----------

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 17 Jul 2002 15:49:50 +0200

> >would rule out being able to post names w/o the ability for

This occurred to me a few days ago. I think the answer is that publication 
would have to be written up as a condition of *accepting* nomination, and 
that eliminates the option of publishing the list before acceptance.

[I am not a lawyer; the usual disclaimers and jokes apply.]

> have participants in our activities?

Some participants are subject to every one of those laws.

> of effect our rules have on people from countries that have rules in

Whose was that again?

> countries that conflict with each other.

You can't, in the general case. But for privacy laws, the only safe choice is
to apply the strictest law.

   Brian

---

From: Scott Bradner <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 17 Jul 2002 10:08:28 -0400 (EDT)

> have participants in our activities?

I would like that not to be the case but do kinda worry 
on what to do when the guys with the handcuffs show up
the next time we are meeting in Europe :-)

Scott

---

From: Thomas Narten <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 19 Jul 2002 22:26:19 -0400

"Theodore Ts'o" <[email-masked]> writes:

> 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.  

There has been a repeated theme that when (say) 50 people are given
some information, that information is no longer secret and you might
as well make it public. I do not quite follow the logic here.

There were some 2001 persons at the Yokohama IETF (plus many more that
didn't make it at all). 50 is a rather small percentage of that. This
doesn't seem to me to automatically translate to "everybody finds
out".

Also, the "50" that were contacted would have been for a particular
position; a different set of folk would typically be contacted for
different positions (i.e, RTG vs. APPs, vs. ...).

Again I don't see this as coming anywhere close to translating into
the equivalent of everyone knowing the list of candidates.

> (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.)

2727 says:

      The nominating committee and confirming body members will be
      exposed to confidential information as a result of their
      deliberations, their interactions with those they consult, and
      from those who provide requested supporting information.  All
      members and all other participants are expected to handle this
      information in a manner consistent with its sensitivity.

I read this as saying folks whose opinions are asked are not free to
state who the nomcom asked them to provide feedback on. If this is
unclear, it needs fixing.

Thomas

---

From: Thomas Narten <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 19 Jul 2002 22:26:30 -0400

Dave Crocker <[email-masked]> writes:

> The fact that nomcom might not talk to one or another particular
> person that someone thinks is essential is a concern that I do not
> find compelling.  Nomcom talks to lots and lots of people.  The idea
> that a single person has highly special insight into a candidate is
> something we should find troubling.  That gives that one person too
> much leverage over a candidacy.

This view misses an extremely important point. The most valuable
source of information the nomcom can obtain about a person may well
come from a very limited set of persons. In particular, the best input
comes from:

 - someone who knows the candidate well (having worked with them
   closely in different situations)

 - someone who knows what kind of skills are needed to do the job for
   which the candidate is being considered.

 - someone willing to speak frankly, honestly, and in detail (not just
   "would make a great AD" type comments) to the candidate's strengths
   and weaknesses related to the duties they will be expected to carry
   out.

Thus, a single person can have some extremely important information.
That is not to say that one person should have too much sway. Armed
with specific detailed information about a candidate, the nomcom can
(and should) dig deeper to confirm what it has heard.

One of the biggest difficulties the nomcom has is in getting detailed
feedback that talks to the candidates strengths and weaknesses related
to specific skills that are needed for the position for which they are
beiing considered.

Thomas

---

From: Russ White <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 20 Jul 2002 11:38:47 -0400 (EDT)

> There has been a repeated theme that when (say) 50 people are
> given some information, that information is no longer secret
> and you might as well make it public. I do not quite follow
> the logic here.
> 
> There were some 2001 persons at the Yokohama IETF (plus many
> more that didn't make it at all). 50 is a rather small
> percentage of that. This doesn't seem to me to automatically
> translate to "everybody finds out".
> 
> Also, the "50" that were contacted would have been for a
> particular position; a different set of folk would typically
> be contacted for different positions (i.e, RTG vs. APPs, vs.
> ...).
> 
> Again I don't see this as coming anywhere close to
> translating into the equivalent of everyone knowing the list
> of candidates.

It turns out that way in fact. Of the 2000 people at IETF this
time, who cares who was on the list? Who would care most? The
people we have to contact in order to find out who is best for
the job, correct? So, in eccense, the list is not a secret in any
meaningful form. Those who care will be asked about the people on
the list. Those who don't care won't recognize the names anyway,
even if they are asked. What's the secret?

Next question--how do you resolve the issues with this nomcom
being accused of leaking, at least in part because of the wide
net cast for feedback, and also resolve the issues with others
stating this nomcom didn't get enough feedback? 

Finally, why is the list of candidates a secret? Can _anyone_
give me a good reason why this is so? It might have made sense in
a smaller community, but how does it make sense now? To allow the
candidates not chosen to save face? Are we adults? 

To prevent people from second guessing the nomcom? They do
already. To prevent people from critizing the list of
candidates? Well, nominations are taken from the community at
large, so nominating a candidate would be the best solution to
this problem, whether or not the list is a "secret." So, what
purpose, in today's IETF, does this rule serve, exactly?

To wit:

-- The list is not a secret anyway. If you cast the net of
feedback wide enough to get everyone who care's comments, then
everyone who cares knows who is on the list.

-- The secrecy of the list serves no purpose whatsoever in
today's process and community.

So, why is it still secret?

:-)

Russ

---

From: Theodore Ts'o <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 20 Jul 2002 12:54:38 -0400

> doesn't seem to me to automatically translate to "everybody finds

#1) There is a saying that the probability that the a secret will be
blown increases with the square of the number of people who know it.
Hence the saying, "three people can keep a secret, if two of them are
dead".

#2) Numerically 50 is a rather small percentage, but it's a very
significant 50.  How many people really get up and participate in a
conversation in a typical working group meeting?  How many people just
sit in a working group meeting and take notes?  What percentage of the
working group can say they have read *all* of the internet-drafts that
have come out?  What percentage of the wg makes useful comments on
drafts?  From my experience, it's a very small percentage indeed!

So the question isn't whether "everyone" finds out, it's whether the
most active and the folks who most care about the outcome of a
particular area director decision find out --- and the answer is those
fifty people cover a large percentage of those folks --- by design!
(The reason why all wg chairs and all I-D author's were chosen was
that it was an easy, algorythmic way of trying to get complete
coverage of that set of people --- and it's failing is that while it
probably gets over 50% of those folks, it doesn't get them all.)

						- Ted