Subject: RE: Liaisons interoperation with NOMCOM members

From: "Bound, Jim" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 26 May 2003 18:59:51 -0400

Donald,

If two voting nomcom members are discussing a candidate and the merits
of that candidate to be selected by that nomcom as input to IETF nomcom
process, should a Liaison participate in the discussion about that
candidate pro or con?

I emphatically believe that if the Liaison does and was not asked to
participate that is a conflict of interest?

The issue is would the simple text Brian suggested give recourse to
prevent this problem from happening.

Example.  From situtation above.  Chair of Nomcom states:  Dear,
Liaisons we are about to engage in a debate on the specific candidates
and we feel your presence here is not required for this dicussion and
would like to do this just with the voting members.

What is wrong with the above?

/jim

---

From: Donald Eastlake 3rd <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 26 May 2003 23:14:01 -0400 (EDT)

Hi Jim,

On Mon, 26 May 2003, Bound, Jim wrote:

> Date: Mon, 26 May 2003 18:59:51 -0400
> From: "Bound, Jim" <[email-masked]>
> To: Donald Eastlake 3rd <[email-masked]>,
>      [email-masked]
> Subject: RE: Liaisons interoperation with NOMCOM members
> 
> Donald,
> 

I would say rarely. I don't recall any of the liaisons doing what I
would generally call "participating in discussion" in the sense of
arguing much.  But quite likely at some time one of them said something
like, when it seemed that candidate X was going to be on the short list
or the like, "I think X and IESG member Y with whom they will have to
work have had some difficulties about Z. You should consider asking each
of them about this." or something like that.

> participate that is a conflict of interest?

Pffah. All you need to do is crank your conflict-of-interest sensitivity
up high enough and you can paralyze any organization. I was meaning to
reply to that effect to your other message wherin your go on and on
about "potential conflict of interest". Everyone in the IETF has
potential conflicts of interest. They may have company or academic
commitment to certain ideas or protocols. Why do we let authors make
comments in discussion about their very own drafts? Isn't that a clear
conflict of interest? Etc. Etc.

What about potential CONGRUITY of interest? How about the theory that 
Liaisons most probably want the IAB and IESG and the nomcom and IETF to 
work well and produce good results?

> prevent this problem from happening.

I don't like Brian's wording for two reasons: Because the exclusion of a
Liaison should be an extraordinary step while someone could read his
wording to mean you can do it anytime you like on a whim, and because it
makes it at the discretion of the chair while I think it should be a
nomcom decision.

> What is wrong with the above?

If it's really true that "we" don't want the Liaisons, the nomcom can
vote to exclude them under the current draft or, indeed, vote to expell
them if there was a chronic problem. If it's not true that "we" don't
want the Liaisons, then the chair is lying.

Suppose your suggested exclusion happens. In the discussion, a member of
the nomcom says "The IESG consists of technical geniuses. I'm sure they
make all of their decisions in a purely logical fashion, probably using
the first order predicate calculus. Candidate X is a real whiz at logic
as well as being the world expert on facet Q of routing. True, candidate
X only speaks Aramaic and doesn't seem to have any charisma, but since
the IESG is a techncial body, I'm sure they are the best candidate."  
Wouldn't it be OK for the IESG Liaison to butt in and point out that,
while technical competance is required, the bulk of the job an every AD
is interpersonal relations? That the IESG actually doesn't decide
everything using the first order predicate calculus?

> /jim

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: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 26 May 2003 23:47:02 -0700

Donald,

>> process, should a Liaison participate in the discussion about that

DE3> I would say rarely. I don't recall any of the liaisons doing what I
DE3> would generally call "participating in discussion" in the sense of
DE3> arguing much.

I do.

In fact they were rather vigorous.

>> participate that is a conflict of interest?

DE3> Pffah. All you need to do is crank your conflict-of-interest sensitivity
DE3> up high enough and you can paralyze any organization.

and that's almost as fun as the effect on the organization of cranking
it too low.

DE3> What about potential CONGRUITY of interest? How about the theory that
DE3> Liaisons most probably want the IAB and IESG and the nomcom and IETF to
DE3> work well and produce good results?

oh.

you mean that besides being dedicated and well-intentioned, such folk
wouldn't *also* rather have people selected who they liked, who agreed
with them, and who would make their own job of AD or IAB participant
easier, such as a personal friend?  And if, by some extraordinary chance
a liaison did want those additional things, you believe their ability to
affect the outcome in that direction would not be a conflict of
interest?

d/
--
 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: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 27 May 2003 09:59:14 +0200

Dave Crocker wrote:
...
> affect the outcome in that direction would not be a conflict of

We are not, I assume, trying to construct some form of perfect
democracy here. We are trying to construct an IAB and IESG that
can work smoothly as an extended team.

I don't object to existing working relationships and friendships
being a factor in selecting the team, among all the other factors.

Conflict of interest is inevitable. The issue is not to avoid it,
but how to ensure checks and balances to prevent unfairness.

    Brian

---

From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 27 May 2003 12:56:13 -0700

Brian and all,

> being a factor in selecting the team, among all the other factors.

  Relationships, maybe, friendships as a factor, not a good idea.

> but how to ensure checks and balances to prevent unfairness.

  I don't agree that COI cannot be eliminated or at least
reduced dramatically.  In fact, if not directly addressed,
COI will become almost immediately a limiting factor
in effectiveness.

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

Regards,

--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 131k members/stakeholders strong!)
"Be precise in the use of words and expect precision from others" -
    Pierre Abelard
================================================================
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [email-masked]
Contact Number: 214-244-4827 or 214-244-3801