Subject: RE: Liaisons interoperation with NOMCOM members

From: "Bound, Jim" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 23 May 2003 14:40:51 -0400

The NOMCOM can need at times an entity without IESG and IAB involvement.
Having served on a NOMCOM the example I will use is when the NOMCOM
wants to discuss privately and confidentially the issues of keep or
replace IESG or IAB members to keep that NOMCOM private conversation
from everyone except the NOMCOM members.  I can think of others but that
is what I mean't by keeping the Government out of the voting booth.  I
agree with Brian why they should be present.  This also gives input to
the NOMCOM if an IESG or IAB member is participating to much in the
defense or denial of candidates or existing members to get them out of
the room because they really should not be doing that other than any
other IETF community member as input to the NOMCOM.  Bottom line IESG or
IAB should not have any extra or more influence on the actual decision
than anyone else that NOMCOM will speak with in the community.

I think the proposed wording would fix this and very minor enhancement.
Then I am done here with my input on this one.

Regards,
/jim

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Joel M. Halpern [mailto:[email-masked]] 
> Sent: Friday, May 23, 2003 1:29 PM
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: Liaisons interoperation with NOMCOM members
> 
> 
> I disagree.  I believe that many of the reasons for having 
> the liaisons at 
> all are impossible if they are excluded from most 
> conversations. I do not believe that there is any damage from 
> having the liaisons in the 
> room.  I find your analogy misleading.
> 
> I have not significant objection to the alternative proposal 
> of giving the 
> chair explicit power to exclude the liaisons from selected 
> discussions.
> 
> Yours,
> Joel M. Halpern
> 
> At 12:30 AM 5/23/2003 -0400, Bound, Jim wrote:
> >In the current document it is not clear totally to me that 
> the Liaisons 
> >should play a more limited role than currently stated, and 
> this should 
> >be the case.  The IAB and IESG Liaisons should only be 
> present during 
> >NOMCOM deliberations when requested and should not be part of the 
> >NOMCOM discourse, unless they are required for clarfication as 
> >Liaisons. Having the Liaisons in the room with the NOMCOM is like 
> >having the Government with you in the voting booth, which is 
> not good.
> >
> >Thoughts?
> >
> >Regards,
> >/jim
> >
> >----------------------------------------------------------------
> >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>
>

---

From: Geoff Huston <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 24 May 2003 06:56:03 +1000

Jim,

A liaison is neither a delegate nor  a representative, and while I would be 
more
inclined to sympathize  with your proposition if such were the case, given that
the liaison role is one more akin to a constrained messenger, then I find your
fears of collective interest being exercised upon the nomcom by the IESG or
the IAB completely without foundation. Given that I was chairing that Nomcom
when you were a member, I can also offer the observation that I saw at no
point in time the exercising of IESG influence on the Nomcom, nor IAB
influence.. Having been an IAB liaison myself subsequently, again at
no point in time were the duties of the liaison during the
Nomcom's consideration period being called upon  beyond the
conveying of explicit queries generated by the Nomcom
and their corresponding responses

I find it worrisome that there is this unfounded and growing level of
mistrust being cast as an undercurrent in many of these considerations,
where various bodies are being cast in a role of potential conspirators,
and that their influence should be countered through the provision
of explicit rules and provisions. What worries me is that when you
start to create the frameworks and mechanisms to counter such
possible problems you also start to create an environment of
mutual distrust, and that is a place I'm sure noone wants to head.

At every point in the Nomcom processes there is a point where rules
and documented process must give way to community trust in
good judgement, as exercised by the chair, as exercised by the
members, and as exercised by the liaisons.  For that reason I see this
particular area (participation of liaisons in the Nomcom) as being one
where explicit provisions are going to find it hard to achieve the necessary
balance, while the judgement of the nomcom itself appears to me to have
been entirely appropriate to date.

regards,

    Geoff

---

From: Donald Eastlake 3rd <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 23 May 2003 22:43:48 -0400 (EDT)

On Fri, 23 May 2003, Bound, Jim wrote:

> Date: Fri, 23 May 2003 14:40:51 -0400
> From: "Bound, Jim" <[email-masked]>
> To: Joel M. Halpern <[email-masked]>, [email-masked]
> Subject: RE: Liaisons interoperation with NOMCOM members
> 

I have never encoutered any problem, as a member of serveral NOMCOMs or
chair of one, with Liaisons. Not only no undue influence on selections
but even no problems when discussion touched on the the actual
individual IAB or IESG member who is the Liaison. (Since how well the
IAB or IESG members will work together is a NOMCOM consideration, there
can be occasion to discuss whether a candidate would work well with
someone who is a Liaison.)

Liaisons are bound by NOMCOM confidentiality. The NOMCOM should expect,
so as to get the maximum benefit from the Liaisons, that all its
conversations to be with the Liaisons present except in VERY unusual
circumstances.

> than anyone else that NOMCOM will speak with in the community.

This is nonsense. One of the reasons the IAB and IESG Liaison are
present is so that their experience as to how the IAB and IESG actually
operate can be called on. True, former members could provide some of
that. But the Liaison has the most current view and because of that
facet of their role they have and should have more influence on some
NOMCOM decisions than the average community member.

It is a bad move to change the rules to make it appear that exclusion of
the Liaisons would in any way be an ordinary or normal thing. I see no
reason to make it be at the discretion of the chair. But there is no
harm is a brief section saying that they can be excluded under
extraordinary circumstances by the NOMCOM committee.

Donald

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 24 May 2003 12:16:25 -0700

Donald,

DE3> I have never encoutered any problem, as a member of serveral NOMCOMs or
DE3> chair of one, with Liaisons.

Whereas others (yes, including me) *have* encountered some problems.

And the really interesting part about the problems is that they flowed
from some very natural situations in which everybody was working hard at
being helpful.

In other words, this is not about nefarious intent and it is not even
about liaisons who are personally problematic.

It is about the potential for distorting the process with nothing but
the best of intentions.

Liaisons inherently have an extremely large amount of power. They are
the experts. They are the folks doing the job of running the IETF. They
deserve the respect the rest of the committee gives them.

But liaisons who are too active in the process will naturally convert
"respect" to become "deference". And anything that causes Nomcom members
to defer to the Liaisons spells the end of the independence that is
essential in the Nomcom process.

When we have a Nomcom that is substantially laced with highly
experienced IETF people, there is at least a counterbalancing force. The
influence of Liaisons can still be at least distracting, but at least it
is mitigated.

When the Nomcom is notably less experienced, the influence has nothing
moderating it.

A Nomcom process needs to be pristine.

Having Liaisons who participate in candidate and community interviews,
who participate actively in the direct Nomcom deliberations and who take
partisan positions for or against various candidates is simply not
appropriate.

>>   Bottom line IESG or

DE3> This is nonsense.

And therein lies the core issue.  Should the IESG and IAB have more
leverage than the rest of the community, when choosing folks to work on
the IAB or IESG?

My own view is that it is nonsense to think that the needs and desires
of the rest of the community are less important.

DE3> One of the reasons the IAB and IESG Liaison are
DE3> present is so that their experience as to how the IAB and IESG actually
DE3> operate can be called on.

That's a reporting job.  Not a lobbying job.

It is about information, not "influence."

d/

ps.  Personally I'm not particularly concerned about the Liaisons'
presence as much as their activity.

--
 Dave Crocker <mailto:[email-masked]>
 Brandenburg InternetWorking <http://www.brandenburg.com>
 Sunnyvale, CA  USA <tel:+1.408.246.8253>, <fax:+1.866.358.5301>

---

From: Donald Eastlake 3rd <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 25 May 2003 18:23:37 -0400 (EDT)

Dave,

On Sat, 24 May 2003, Dave Crocker wrote:

> Date: Sat, 24 May 2003 12:16:25 -0700
> From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
> Reply-To: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
> To: Donald Eastlake 3rd <[email-masked]>
> Cc: [email-masked]

I never said anything about "nefarious intent". If something is a
distortion is a value judgement.

> deserve the respect the rest of the committee gives them.

Power? Liaisons have less official "power" than voting nomcom member in
that they can't even vote on candidates.  They might or might not have
more influence, depending on the other members of the nomcom.

> essential in the Nomcom process.

"Deference" or "resentment". The nomcom process is not and never was 
intended to be an isolated independent exercise is some dream world. 
The nomcom is supposed to do its best to reflect the IETF community 
including the IAB and IESG.

> When the Nomcom is notably less experienced, the influence has nothing

Let's see here. The Liaisons are fine if there is an the nomcom that has
other experienced members. But if the nomcom has, due to some fluke,
nothing but inexperienced members (and, presumably, an ineffective
chair), then it is better for the nomcom to flounder in inexperience and
ignorance and make inexperineced and ignorant choices than, under those
circumstances, for the Liaisons to have more influence than they might
have with an experience nomcom.  That's an interesting point of view but
I don't agree.

> A Nomcom process needs to be pristine.

I consider the above statement to be essentially content free. All real
world organizational structure decisions are compromises with good and
bad aspects. The only selection process I would consider "pristine"  
would be one that was completely random and or had only purely object
criterial. But this would produce a poor IAB and IESG. A good part of
the job of IAB and IESG members is interpersonal relations and there is
no way for their selection to, as practical matter, be other than
subjective.

> partisan positions for or against various candidates is simply not

It's up to the nomcom whether Liaisons do interviews on behalf of the
nomcom and report back. I tend to agree that they shouldn't but I don't
see a need for a rule here. As for participating in deliberations and
taking a position, it's up to the other members and, primarily, the
chair to see that things are handled in a balanced fashion.

And note that I never said Liaiaon's couldn't be excluded from some 
nomcom activities. Just that I think that should only be done under 
extraordinary circumstances.

> of the rest of the community are less important.

What I meant to say was that I would certainly expect a Liaison to have
more influence than the average member of the IETF community. More than
the *average member*, not more than the entire rest of the IETF
community.

> That's a reporting job.  Not a lobbying job.

It's entirely possible for something to be discussed in the nomcom for 
which input about IAB/IESG procedures/experience would be useful without 
the nomcom realizing this. The Liaisons should be present, except under 
very unusual circumstances, and should be able to speak up.

If a Liaison is really perceived as a problem, there has always been a
procedure whereby the nomcom can kick someone out of the nomcom,
including the Liaisons, forcing the body they are form to pick a new
Liaison.

Thanks,
Donald
======================================================================
 Donald E. Eastlake 3rd                       [email-masked]
 155 Beaver Street              +1-508-634-2066(h) +1-508-851-8280(w)
 Milford, MA 01757 USA                   [email-masked]

---

From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 26 May 2003 10:00:51 +0200

> chair to see that things are handled in a balanced fashion.

on the one nomcom I've participated in as a liaison from the IESG, I 
objected to being asked to do candidate interviews - because I believed it 
was proper for the voting members of the nomcom to get that information 
directly, not via the liaison.

This argument was accepted by the nomcom at that time. I guess it has 
become part of the folklore since.

(note - the record at http://www.ietf.org/NomCom.html needs to be checked 
by someone whose memory is better than mine..... I can't find that 
nomcom.... and I'm pretty sure the nomcom listed as "1995-1996" is the one 
that selected me for Apps AD back in 1995..... odd numbering....)

                       Harald