Subject: [ietf-nomcom] "Lobbying"

From: "Spencer Dawkins" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 31 Mar 2009 17:21:32 -0500

So ... Russ will be posting the notes from last Wednesday's plenary, but I'd 
like to kick off one topic where I'm not excited about the direction we 
might be going... this was the only hum that surprised me.

Russ gets to make the consensus calls, but I'm pretty sure that I saw more 
people humming for "saying something about what is acceptable NomCom 
behavior", than humming against it, during discussion of 
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-dawkins-nomcom-openlist-02.

I'm pretty sure that we do have some community norms that nominees might 
thank us for pointing out ("sending out e-mail that says Company X endorses 
Candidate Y is, at best, unproductive and might be counterproductive"), but 
I'm concerned that trying to specify what is/is not acceptable NomCom 
behavior in some detail probably underestimates the ability of IETF 
participants to devise unacceptable behaviors...

:-(

As author (on an individual draft), I was OK with just assuming that the 
community could provide appropriate back pressure (unacceptable NomCom 
behaviors are counterproductive and don't work), but am now wondering if the 
concern is that people may devise behaviors that aren't acceptable, BUT SEEM 
TO WORK? If that's the concern, I can go there, too, but if it's not, I'd 
rather not try to specify acceptable behavior in a lot of detail.

Thoughts?

Thanks,

Spencer

---

From: Fred Baker <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 31 Mar 2009 15:37:09 -0700

My general observation in law is that we don't define what is "good",  
we define what is "bad". What is not "bad" is arguably "good", and if  
we discover that we missed a point we pass a new law.

The counterpoint to that is the Scout Law: (http://www.scouting.org/Media/FactSheets/02-503a.aspx 
). I have visions of having folks in the plenary raise their right  
hands and say "An IETF participant is trustworthy, loyal, ..."

I like the idea of specifying the goal and shunning those that are  
clearly not headed in that direction. If I were to recommend anything  
of that ilk, I would find myself talking about the Golden Rule and  
corporate policy - if you would like to be treated a certain way  
yourself, act that way, and if you company would not find it  
acceptable for you to act a certain way toward its CEO, don't treat  
other IETFers that way.

Like you, I don't relish the thought of outlawing hot-button-du-jour.  
Do we need a dress code, for example? "Only folks wearing Birkenstocks  
may enter the room; ties will be cut off at the door and nailed to the  
wall".

Ugg. No, Uggs.

On Mar 31, 2009, at 3:21 PM, Spencer Dawkins wrote:

> So ... Russ will be posting the notes from last Wednesday's plenary,  
> but I'd like to kick off one topic where I'm not excited about the  
> direction we might be going... this was the only hum that surprised  
> me.
>
> Russ gets to make the consensus calls, but I'm pretty sure that I  
> saw more people humming for "saying something about what is  
> acceptable NomCom behavior", than humming against it, during  
> discussion of http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-dawkins-nomcom-openlist-02 
> .
>
> I'm pretty sure that we do have some community norms that nominees  
> might thank us for pointing out ("sending out e-mail that says  
> Company X endorses Candidate Y is, at best, unproductive and might  
> be counterproductive"), but I'm concerned that trying to specify  
> what is/is not acceptable NomCom behavior in some detail probably  
> underestimates the ability of IETF participants to devise  
> unacceptable behaviors...
>
> :-(
>
> As author (on an individual draft), I was OK with just assuming that  
> the community could provide appropriate back pressure (unacceptable  
> NomCom behaviors are counterproductive and don't work), but am now  
> wondering if the concern is that people may devise behaviors that  
> aren't acceptable, BUT SEEM TO WORK? If that's the concern, I can go  
> there, too, but if it's not, I'd rather not try to specify  
> acceptable behavior in a lot of detail.
>
> Thoughts?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Spencer
>
> _______________________________________________
> ietf-nomcom mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-nomcom

---

From: Danny McPherson <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 31 Mar 2009 16:39:14 -0600

On Mar 31, 2009, at 4:37 PM, Fred Baker wrote:

> Like you, I don't relish the thought of outlawing hot-button-du- 
> jour. Do we need a dress code, for example? "Only folks wearing  
> Birkenstocks may enter the room; ties will be cut off at the door  
> and nailed to the wall".

Agreed, me either...

-danny