Subject: Re: [ietf-nomcom] announcing list of willing candidates

From: Russ White <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 02 Mar 2009 08:42:35 -0500

> Rather than sending a whole bunch of (at least today), supposedly confidential
> to many people, and hoping that some of them do the right thing with it,
> I'd instead send the same list of people the question "would you be prepared
> to provide some confidential information upon a nominee for an IETF
> leadership position, and keep all information supplied confidential?" (in a
> few more words than that probably) - and then wait for the responses.

In which case you would probably receive very little in the way of
feedback, if any at all. There is a reality not addressed here--people
quite often aren't certain of the value of the information they have, or
they have information that is valuable, and aren't asked.

You're assuming here is that either the nomcom will know, with
precision, who to ask for feedback (who has valuable information within
the community). This is a big assumption.

You're also assuming people will honestly report on their own honesty.
It's a bit like asking spammers to set a new "spam" bit in their emails.

> I'd also tend to ask about just one nominee in a message - that is, rather
> than giving a list of nominees and asking "which is best" (or what are the 
> strengths/weaknesses amongst this group), I'd just ask for opinions about a
> single person (nominee), and possibly a blanket final question "and is there
> anyone else you know of who would, or would not be, good for this position?"

This either means each person is going to get a serialized set of
emails, each with one of the candidates in it, or they are only going to
be asked about one or two candidates, which means information they have
about someone they're not asked about won't come out--because they won't
know whether these "other people" are on the list or not.

If this is the reason:

> If there nominee names are never known, that kind of thinking can't
> happen - when asked, the person concerned might even say in their response
> "I can do this if required, but I think Barney Rubble would be a better
> choice" - never knowing if Barney is being considered or not.

It's wrong. Everyone knows at least _one_ candidate for the position,
the person currently holding it. No matter how much you try to keep
confidential, that much is known by everyone. So, we can throw this
reason out with a high degree of confidence, because a large number of
people will not toss their hats in the ring because they are either
happy with the current officeholder, or they don't believe themselves to
be better qualified than that person. Many people will also simply give
you feedback of "I like x, but they won't be any better than the person
currently serving."

The other reason I've heard is to avoid embarrassment. I consider this
reason bogus as well, since we so willingly embarrass people in the
second call for nominees.

Are there any other reasons to keep pretending the list is confidential?

:-)

Russ

---

From: "Jeffrey A. Williams" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 01 Mar 2009 12:55:33 -0800

Russ and all,

  Wow good response here Russ!  More specific comments below
interspersed.

Russ White wrote:

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>

  How very true, and obviously a problem that can be a circular one
without a resolution that everyone or some would be comfortable with.

> the community). This is a big assumption.

  A huge assumption!

> It's a bit like asking spammers to set a new "spam" bit in their emails.

  ROFLMAO!  How true!

> know whether these "other people" are on the list or not.

  Yes.  OR, there is always the situation where some information someone
has on someone else is false, or not entirely accurate.

> you feedback of "I like x, but they won't be any better than the person

  Good point.

> second call for nominees.

  Also a very valid point.

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32)
> Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
>
> iEYEARECAAYFAkmr4ksACgkQER27sUhU9OSAMACffcwvxEc50okl9NT5wdfcyp+U
> GD0AmwQsIEPEcLc2gEEtcoxC8jYr0xUw
> =MVi+
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
> _______________________________________________
> ietf-nomcom mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-nomcom

Regards,

Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 284k members/stakeholders strong!)
"Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" -
   Abraham Lincoln
"YES WE CAN!"  Barack ( Berry ) Obama

"Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is
very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt

"If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B;
liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by
P: i.e., whether B is less than PL."
United States v. Carroll Towing  (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947]
===============================================================
Updated 1/26/04
CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS.
div. of Information Network Eng.  INEG. INC.
ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail
[email-masked]
My Phone: 214-244-4827