Subject: Publishing names

From: avri <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 16 Jul 2002 09:53:10 +0900

Hi,

At the nomcom WG meeting held in Yokohama, there was a
split opinion (i.e. nowhere near consensus) on the subject of
whether names of nominees or candidates (nominees who have been
selected for confirmation)  should be published.

The opinions ranged from:

- the status quo should be maintained and names should not be
published

- the names of anyone nominated, whether they agree to the
nomination of not, should be published

- the names of nominees who agree to stand for consideration
should be published

- a winnowed list of nominees who have agreed to stand for
consideration should be published.  the winnowing criteria
to be left up to the nomcom itself

- the list of candidates presented to the confirming bodies
should be published.

As an extra dimension, there was also a recommendation that not
only should the names be published, but the nominees questionnaire
or another supporting statement should also be published.

Before any change to the running process can be made, a
consensus would need to be reached.  At this point I am reaching
out to the members of this list to get your viewpoints on this
list of possibilities.   While giving your viewpoint, I ask
that you include your reasons, especially an indication of what
problem you think will be solved by adopting the choice you propose.

Once a decent interval for the dialogue has gone by, I will
attempt to summarize the positions and propose a way forward.

Thanks
a.
-- 
Avri Doria

---

From: Geoff Huston <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 16 Jul 2002 11:11:25 +1000

>problem you think will be solved by adopting the choice you propose.

I am in favour of the status quo and that names should not be published.

Reason:
The task is to identify the most effective individuals who can be of the 
greatest benefit to the IETF in achieving its objectives. It is not the 
role to identify the most popular or most highly recognizable individuals 
who have the greatest ability to elicit responses that acclaim the 
individual's ability to engender name recognition.

The implicit assumption behind the position is that the Nomcom is assumed 
to be diligent in consulting throughout the IETF and diligent in nominating 
individuals who are best qualified to address the IETF's needs in each open 
position. If these assumptions are suspect that I'm not sure that any form 
of name publication will assist in restoring confidence in he Nomcom, and 
the risk is that the Nomcom's desire to reflect its input in its choices 
becomes an exercise in selecting the most visible and popular individuals, 
who in turn may not necessarily be the most qualified or competent.

thanks,

     Geoff

---

From: Scott Brim <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 16 Jul 2002 10:29:07 +0900

> - the names of nominees who agree to stand for consideration

This one.  As already discussed, I believe it is better to publish, to
better involve the populace.  The only question is when to publish, and
how much.  As to when, as soon as the NomCom has gone through its
initial solicitation stage.  

One of the principles that sometimes gets lost recently, not only in
NomCom but in WG process, is "no surprises".  It is good to make time
for comments and reactions to initial data, rather than waiting for
comments on decisions (when psychologically you will be inclined to
defend them).  

I'm not concerned about the possibility of a popularity contest, because
I trust the NomCom members can think.  The reason for publishing is not
to get popularity information, but to get information that the NomCom
might not otherwise, including other potential candidates which the IETF
populace might think of in reaction to seeing the list.  The IETF is now
large, and just talking to a few friends doesn't get you far.

New names added after initial publication should not be announced by
themselves.  Rather, the whole list should be published as it changes.

Do not publish names of those who are volunteered without agreeing.
Since they have not agreed, they are not being considered yet, and there
is nothing there for the general community to respond to, and it also
opens the door to abuse.

> to be left up to the nomcom itself

Why leave the door open for confusion?  The criterion for publication is
that someone is on the list for the NomCom to consider, and thus the
community can/should react.

> - the list of candidates presented to the confirming bodies

This is after decisions have been made, and therefore less desirable for
reasons discussed above.  

> or another supporting statement should also be published.

No.  It would be nice for the community at large to see what their
(potential) leaders think about certain issues, but the goal of
publishing the list of nominees is not to get comments on what the
nominees propose, it's to get comments on what the community knows of
their abilities.  Also, the questionnaire answers can be more personal
if the nominee knows they will be kept to the NomCom and those they work
with.

No surprises ... Scott

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 16 Jul 2002 10:15:25 +0200

If the timescale is stretched as the draft proposes, I would accept the
status quo. But if the general consensus is for publication, or if the
timescale is not stretched, I would concur with Scott, i.e.

> > - the names of nominees who agree to stand for consideration

   Brian

---

From: Igor Faynberg <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 16 Jul 2002 01:09:43 -0400

If only the NomCom is to select, what is the point of publishing the
names?  If X wants a position and is elected, X's name will be published
anyway. If X is not elected, the populace will deduce that X was not
good enough for the NomCom. That might prevent Ys and Zs from
self-nominating or accepting nominations in the future, making the pool
of (potentially good) nominees smaller. These are two bad outcomes. But
where is the good one? How will the "populace" benefit?

I am all for status quo.

Igor

Scott Brim wrote:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription
> manager: <http://lists.elistx.com/subscribe>

---

From: avri <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 17 Jul 2002 10:27:54 +0900

Hi,

I have been talking to folks, not on this list, about the issue
with the comments pretty much continuing along the the split lines
being seen on this list.

One point did come up 3 times that has not appeared here, so i
figured i should pass it on.

- If the list is of all names - i.e. without needing the approval of
the named to appear on the list, then we MUST provide the right
for someone to have their name stricken from the list.  I got a
very stern warning that a person has a right of privacy that includes
not being included on a list of nominees.  I was also told by two
of the poeple that they would remove their name as soon as it appeared
on any such list.

It occurs to me that if we publish the raw list but do allow people to
have their names stricken then we in effect will have a list where people
can assume that all names on the list are willing to be considered.

a.

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 17 Jul 2002 12:18:44 +0200

Igor Faynberg wrote:
> names?  

To ensure that NomCom
a) gets full feedback about each candidate
b) gets extra nominations that may have been overlooked initially

   Brian