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

From: Danny McPherson <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 6 May 2009 02:06:07 -0600

Spencer et al.,
It seems to me we've reached [near] consensus on
<http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-dawkins-nomcom-openlist-01.txt 
and I'd _really like to see this I-D pushed to IETF LC and
recommendations instituted before the next NomCom cycle -
which is approaching fast.

Were there any outstanding actions that need to be updated or
can we ask to progress?

-danny

---

From: Leslie Daigle <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 06 May 2009 06:22:34 -0400

BTW, the current version is -02.

For myself -- I would like to see a version that didn't include 
"Spencer's personal opinion" before it goes out to any kind of last call.

(The text is either trying to be consensus, and doesn't need the phrase 
as an intro, or it truly is a personal opinion that should fade before 
publication as an RFC, IMO).

Leslie.

Danny McPherson wrote:
> <http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-dawkins-nomcom-openlist-01.txt>
> _______________________________________________
> ietf-nomcom mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-nomcom

-- 

-------------------------------------------------------------------
"Reality:
      Yours to discover."
                                 -- ThinkingCat
Leslie Daigle
[email-masked]
-------------------------------------------------------------------

---

From: "Spencer Dawkins" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 6 May 2009 15:59:44 -0500

Hi, Danny,

> Were there any outstanding actions that need to be updated or

I believe the required updates for this draft are

- allow padding if NomCom is considering only one or two candidates for a 
specific position (this was requested at the plenary, and if a NomCom can 
only find one or two willing candidates, I'm thinking the choices are (1) 
let them pad, or (2) tell them if we can only find one or two people who are 
willing to serve in a given position, we need to rethink the position, not 
just add a couple of ringers - and I would be OK with either path forward)

- make it clear that all feedback about announced candidates goes to NomCom 
for confidential consideration (we aren't looking for "I Like Bob" posts on 
the IETF discussion list)

- remove Spencer's Personal Opinions in preparation for publication.

What else am I missing?

Thanks,

Spencer

---

From: "Joel M. Halpern" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 06 May 2009 17:20:20 -0400

As long as the wording is clear that it is "allow" rather than "require" 
on your first point, I can live with that.

Joel

Spencer Dawkins wrote:
> - allow padding if NomCom is considering only one or two candidates for 
> a specific position (this was requested at the plenary, and if a NomCom 
> can only find one or two willing candidates, I'm thinking the choices 
> are (1) let them pad, or (2) tell them if we can only find one or two 
> people who are willing to serve in a given position, we need to rethink 
> the position, not just add a couple of ringers - and I would be OK with 
> either path forward)
> 
> - make it clear that all feedback about announced candidates goes to 
> NomCom for confidential consideration (we aren't looking for "I Like 
> Bob" posts on the IETF discussion list)
>

---

From: "Spencer Dawkins" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 6 May 2009 16:29:13 -0500

Hi, Joel,

Exactly. The text in my working draft looks like this:

  <t>The list of nominees published should not contain the names of nominees 
who
   have not indicated a willingness to serve in a position under
   review, unless the NomCom is considering only one or two
   willing nominees for a position.
   <vspace blankLines='1' />
  </t>

I'm trying to be very restrictive here (that's my personal viewpoint) - 
think this is the right tone, or can other people suggest text that would be 
more appropriate?

Thanks,

Spencer

>> let them pad, or (2) tell them if we can only find one or two people who 
>> are willing to serve in a given position, we need to rethink the 
>> position, not just add a couple of ringers - and I would be OK with 
>> either path forward)
>>
>> NomCom for confidential consideration (we aren't looking for "I Like Bob" 
>> posts on the IETF discussion list)
>>

---

From: Fred Baker <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 6 May 2009 14:44:02 -0700

That seems like a reasonable tone. I do question the "unless" in the  
particular case: if a person has withdrawn their name from candidacy,  
they're not candidates, even if there is no other candidate.

I would actually state it positively, though.

<t>The list of nominees published should contain only the names of  
nominees who have indicated a willingness to serve in a position under  
review.</t>

On May 6, 2009, at 2:29 PM, Spencer Dawkins wrote:

> <t>The list of nominees published should not contain the names of  
> nominees who
> I'm trying to be very restrictive here (that's my personal  
> viewpoint) - think this is the right tone, or can other people  
> suggest text that would be more appropriate?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Spencer
>
>
>> As long as the wording is clear that it is "allow" rather than  
>> "require" on your first point, I can live with that.
>>
>> Joel
>>
>> Spencer Dawkins wrote:
>>> Hi, Danny,
>>>
>>>> Spencer et al.,
>>> - allow padding if NomCom is considering only one or two  
>>> candidates for a specific position (this was requested at the  
>>> plenary, and if a NomCom can only find one or two willing  
>>> candidates, I'm thinking the choices are (1) let them pad, or (2)  
>>> tell them if we can only find one or two people who are willing to  
>>> serve in a given position, we need to rethink the position, not  
>>> - make it clear that all feedback about announced candidates goes  
>>> to NomCom for confidential consideration (we aren't looking for "I  
>>> Like Bob" posts on the IETF discussion list)
>>>

---

From: "Spencer Dawkins" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 6 May 2009 16:59:42 -0500

Hi, Fred,

This paragraph was intended to cover padding - "don't do it unless you have 
only one or two willing nominees". In that case, the additional nominees 
aren't willing, but their names would still be published (with permission, 
of course).

Is this clearer?

  <t>The list of nominees published should not contain the names of nominees 
who
   are unwilling to serve in a position under
   review, unless the NomCom is considering only one or two
   willing nominees for a position and wishes to include "padding" in the 
published
   list of nominees, with permission from these unwilling nominees.
   <vspace blankLines='1' />
  </t>

To all - I'm struggling a little bit with "one or two" - if we have two 
willing candidates, do we NEED to add padding? I'd like to make this 
"considering only one willing nominee", but don't want to do that without 
asking the mailing list.

Thanks,

Spencer

>> think this is the right tone, or can other people  suggest text that 
>> would be more appropriate?
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Spencer
>>
>>
>>>> - allow padding if NomCom is considering only one or two  candidates 
>>>> for a specific position (this was requested at the  plenary, and if a 
>>>> NomCom can only find one or two willing  candidates, I'm thinking the 
>>>> choices are (1) let them pad, or (2)  tell them if we can only find one 
>>>> or two people who are willing to  serve in a given position, we need to 
>>>> rethink the position, not  just add a couple of ringers - and I would 
>>>> be OK with either path  forward)
>>>>

---

From: Fred Baker <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 6 May 2009 15:13:31 -0700

How about:

  review, unless the NomCom wishes to include "padding" in the published

btw, why the blank line?

On May 6, 2009, at 2:59 PM, Spencer Dawkins wrote:

> Hi, Fred,
>
> This paragraph was intended to cover padding - "don't do it unless  
> you have only one or two willing nominees". In that case, the  
> additional nominees aren't willing, but their names would still be  
> published (with permission, of course).
>
> Is this clearer?
>
>  willing nominees for a position and wishes to include "padding" in  
> the published
> To all - I'm struggling a little bit with "one or two" - if we have  
> two willing candidates, do we NEED to add padding? I'd like to make  
> this "considering only one willing nominee", but don't want to do  
> that without asking the mailing list.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Spencer
>
>
>> That seems like a reasonable tone. I do question the "unless" in  
>> the particular case: if a person has withdrawn their name from  
>> candidacy, they're not candidates, even if there is no other  
>> candidate.
>>
>> nominees who have indicated a willingness to serve in a position  
>> under review.</t>
>>
>>>>> candidates, I'm thinking the choices are (1) let them pad, or  
>>>>> (2)  tell them if we can only find one or two people who are  
>>>>> willing to  serve in a given position, we need to rethink the  
>>>>> position, not  just add a couple of ringers - and I would be OK  
>>>>> with either path  forward)
>>>>>
>>>>> - make it clear that all feedback about announced candidates  
>>>>> goes  to NomCom for confidential consideration (we aren't  
>>>>> looking for "I  Like Bob" posts on the IETF discussion list)
>>>>>

---

From: "Spencer Dawkins" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 6 May 2009 17:35:20 -0500

Hi, Fred,

>  list of nominees, with permission from these unwilling nominees.

This seems to be less restrictive - basically saying "NomCom shouldn't use 
padding unless they want to".

I was taking the hum at IETF 74 plenary as evidence that people wanted to 
say "don't use padding" - but one of the current NomCom participants asked, 
"but what if we've only got one or two willing nominees?", so I didn't want 
to exclude padding in that case.

Modulo checking that evidence on the mailing list, of course.

How are other people seeing this?

Thanks,

Spencer

>> This paragraph was intended to cover padding - "don't do it unless  you 
>> have only one or two willing nominees". In that case, the  additional 
>> nominees aren't willing, but their names would still be  published (with 
>> permission, of course).
>>
>> Is this clearer?
>>
>> "considering only one willing nominee", but don't want to do  that 
>> without asking the mailing list.
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Spencer
>>
>>
>>>>>> for a specific position (this was requested at the   plenary, and if 
>>>>>> a NomCom can only find one or two willing   candidates, I'm thinking 
>>>>>> the choices are (1) let them pad, or  (2)  tell them if we can only 
>>>>>> find one or two people who are  willing to  serve in a given 
>>>>>> position, we need to rethink the  position, not  just add a couple of 
>>>>>> ringers - and I would be OK  with either path  forward)
>>>>>>

---

From: "Bert Wijnen \(IETF\)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 7 May 2009 08:52:29 +0200

I do not like the padding at all.
So certainly it should be "allow the nomcom to do so in rare
cases where there is only one (max 2) willing nominees).

Maybe too big a change.... but how about allowing new nominations
if there is only one (willing) nominee? In other words, if those who need
to comment believe that the one nominee is perfect, then fine. If not, they
can/should find other volunteers that can be nominated. Of course this should
not happen too late in the process.

Bert
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Spencer Dawkins 
  To: Fred Baker 
  Cc: NomComDiscussion 
  Sent: Thursday, May 07, 2009 12:35 AM
  Subject: Re: [ietf-nomcom] announcing list of willing candidates

  Hi, Fred,

  Thanks,

  Spencer

---

From: Lars Eggert <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 7 May 2009 10:54:22 +0300

Hi,

On 2009-5-7, at 1:35, Spencer Dawkins wrote:
> say "don't use padding"

I saw consensus for "don't use padding".

> - but one of the current NomCom participants asked,

I didn't see consensus for allowing padding in this special case - my  
take-away was that there was consensus to not use padding then either.

Lars

---

From: "Spencer Dawkins" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 7 May 2009 07:28:54 -0500

> take-away was that there was consensus to not use padding then either.

OK, I went back and looked at 
http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/09mar/plenaryw.html, which says

"Russ asks who believes we should open an unpadded willing-to-serve
nominee list?

very many hums

Russ asks who is opposed?

few hums

Russ asks who believes that we need to do anything that describes what
is acceptable nominee behaviour.

many hums

Russ asks who doesn't believe this is necessary?

a few more hums"

So it doesn't look like Russ took a hum on the special case, and even if he 
had, we should be verifying on a mailing list - could people who think we 
should allow padding of nominee lists with only one or two willing nominees 
say so now?

I'll remove the special-case text and hold off submitting for a couple of 
days, to see what pops up on the mailing list - so the working copy of this 
draft now looks like

  <t>The list of nominees for a position under review should not contain the 
names of
   nominees who are unwilling to serve in that position (so-called 
"padding").
   <vspace blankLines='1' />
  </t>

Thanks,

Spencer

---

From: [email-masked] (Scott O. Bradner)
Date: Thu, 7 May 2009 08:32:33 -0400 (EDT)

> could people who think we

I'd rather leave the nomcom with flexibility 

Scott

---

From: [email-masked] (Scott O. Bradner)
Date: Thu, 7 May 2009 08:33:18 -0400 (EDT)

maybe "do not need to pad..."

Scott

---

From: "Spencer Dawkins" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 7 May 2009 07:39:35 -0500

Hi, Lars,

> take-away was that there was consensus to not use padding then either.

OK, let's go there.

("I've never served on a NomCom, but ..." - and not trying to reflect 
consensus yet, because this is a question I haven't seen discussed lately)

What do we want NomCom to do if there is only one willing nominee? I'm 
assuming that choices would include (singly or in combination):

- asking for feedback on a padded list (what we are saying we DON'T want to 
keep doing),

- asking for feedback on one willing nominee with no padding (boy, it would 
reek to be that person and not get selected, but I guess it's not much worse 
than reopening the call for nominations after lots of people have seen the 
short list, which we do today),

- looking at the single nominee without a call for feedback from the 
community,

- reopening the call for nominations with a higher level of "enhanced 
recruiting techniques" (sorry for the GITMO reference), or

- telling someone (who?) that there isn't enough community support for this 
position to allow NomCom to fill the position using the normal NomCom 
process, and we need to look at whether the position needs to be redefined 
or even eliminated.

Are there other choices that I'm missing?

What SHOULD happen? Can we provide helpful guidance in this document?

Thanks,

Spencer

---

From: Thomas Narten <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 07 May 2009 08:45:02 -0400

> I do not like the padding at all.

Agreed.

What I'd like to see in the document is a short explanation of why
padding is to be avoided and why it is considered a Bad Thing. Without
that background, we just have a process rule that misses the
underlying issue. I.e., the rule about padding the list really ought
to be "SHOULD NOT", with an explanation of why.

For me, the issue with padding is that it wastes the community's time
and is a disincentive to comment on the names. That does not help in
the selection of the best candidates.

But I could imagine some scenarios where it is deemed necessary, in
which case a process rule that says MUST NOT seems a bad thing to have
on the books.

Thomas

---

From: Thomas Narten <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 07 May 2009 08:48:28 -0400

> short list, which we do today),

The nomcom absolutely  has to have the ability to do this. I would
expect the nomcom to run into "we need more feedback on person X in
particular" (for whatever reason). Surely the nomcom should be able to
do that?

Thomas

---

From: Bernie Hoeneisen <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 7 May 2009 15:06:09 +0200 (CEST)

+1

(I also hate padding, but...)

---

From: "Joel M. Halpern" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 07 May 2009 09:07:13 -0400

I suggest not writing any text specifically for this case.
I do not think padding would actually help this at all.
And what else "should" happen probably depends upon the exact case.  The 
nomcom can appoint the one person, find some other nominees, or not 
appoint.  Nothing new needs to be said to allow any of those options.
(And maybe they will come up with a new option, depending upon the exact 
circumstances.)

Yours,
Joel

Spencer Dawkins wrote:
> - asking for feedback on a padded list (what we are saying we DON'T want 
> to keep doing),
> 
> - asking for feedback on one willing nominee with no padding (boy, it 
> would reek to be that person and not get selected, but I guess it's not 
> much worse than reopening the call for nominations after lots of people 
> have seen the short list, which we do today),
> 
> - telling someone (who?) that there isn't enough community support for 
> this position to allow NomCom to fill the position using the normal 
> NomCom process, and we need to look at whether the position needs to be 
> redefined or even eliminated.
>

---

From: "Spencer Dawkins" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 7 May 2009 09:05:49 -0500

Hi, Joel,

> appoint.  Nothing new needs to be said to allow any of those options.

I agree on your first two cases, but ... is it obvious that a NomCom can 
forward an incomplete slate because no willing nominee is a suitable 
candidate? I'm remembering much wailing about a recent attempt to get a 
confirming body to confirm a partial slate, and we haven't made normative 
changes to 3777 since then.

Thanks,

Spencer

---

From: Fred Baker <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 7 May 2009 07:43:03 -0700

The reason that a nomcom must send a complete slate is to protect the  
confidentiality of those it has names of and doesn't have consensus to  
select. How does that fit with the idea of posting a single name and  
then not choosing it?

Not arguing for padding, but concerned that there is a mismatch here.

On May 7, 2009, at 7:05 AM, Spencer Dawkins wrote:

>> And what else "should" happen probably depends upon the exact  
>> case.  The nomcom can appoint the one person, find some other  
>> nominees, or not appoint.  Nothing new needs to be said to allow  
>> any of those options.
>
> I agree on your first two cases, but ... is it obvious that a NomCom  
> can forward an incomplete slate because no willing nominee is a  
> suitable candidate? I'm remembering much wailing about a recent  
> attempt to get a confirming body to confirm a partial slate, and we  
> haven't made normative changes to 3777 since then.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Spencer
>

---

From: "Joel M. Halpern" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 07 May 2009 10:52:10 -0400

It is clear that incomplete appointments can happen (easiest way: a full 
slate gets selected, confirmed, verified, and announced.  Then one 
person steps down.)
Normally, confirming bodies do not like to confirm partial slates, but 
it does happen.

Presumably, if the nomcom chooses not to appoint, they have some plan of 
action.  Whether their plan is to explicitly leave the seat vacant, or 
to fill it by some longer procedure, this will need to be communicated 
to the confirming body.  And is likely to provoke discussion.  That's 
between those bodies.

My point is NOT that leaving it vacant is a good idea.  But rather that 
I see no reason to add any text attempting to pre-guess (pre-judge?) the 
correct response to a difficult situation.

Joel

Spencer Dawkins wrote:
>> And what else "should" happen probably depends upon the exact case.  
>> The nomcom can appoint the one person, find some other nominees, or 
>> not appoint.  Nothing new needs to be said to allow any of those options.
> 
> confirming body to confirm a partial slate, and we haven't made 
> normative changes to 3777 since then.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Spencer
> 
>

---

From: Fred Baker <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 7 May 2009 07:58:35 -0700

this has resulted in the confirming bodies responding "you did not  
send a complete list" and stonewalling. The nomcom would need a way to  
tell the community that the IAB is feeling its oats again.

On May 7, 2009, at 7:52 AM, Joel M. Halpern wrote:

> It is clear that incomplete appointments can happen (easiest way: a  
> full slate gets selected, confirmed, verified, and announced.  Then  
> one person steps down.)
> Normally, confirming bodies do not like to confirm partial slates,  
> but it does happen.
>
> Presumably, if the nomcom chooses not to appoint, they have some  
> plan of action.  Whether their plan is to explicitly leave the seat  
> vacant, or to fill it by some longer procedure, this will need to be  
> communicated to the confirming body.  And is likely to provoke  
> discussion.  That's between those bodies.
>
> My point is NOT that leaving it vacant is a good idea.  But rather  
> that I see no reason to add any text attempting to pre-guess (pre- 
> judge?) the correct response to a difficult situation.
>
> Joel
>
> Spencer Dawkins wrote:
>> Hi, Joel,
>> I agree on your first two cases, but ... is it obvious that a  
>> NomCom can forward an incomplete slate because no willing nominee  
>> is a suitable candidate? I'm remembering much wailing about a  
>> recent attempt to get a confirming body to confirm a partial slate,  
>> and we haven't made normative changes to 3777 since then.
>> Thanks,
>> Spencer

---

From: "Joel M. Halpern" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 07 May 2009 11:17:40 -0400

That (a clash of wills between the nomcom and the confirming body) 
demonstrably can occur anyway.
There are ways to reduce the odds of such.
Those ways do not include trying to write text to cover all the weird 
things reality can do to us.

I presume that the nomcom takes its responsibilities seriously.  I 
presume that they are trying to do what is best for the community.
Thus, if they have only one nominee, and that nominee is someone they 
are unhappy with, I don't think it takes extra text to tell them "go try 
and find someone better."
Similarly, if they have tried, and they have concluded that they can 
not, and they concluded that they can not appoint the one nominee, then 
I do not think that writing special rules is either necessary or useful.

The philosophy of this document historically was to leave things up to 
the judgment of the nominating committee and the nominating committee chair.

I also presume that having observed history, if the nomcom decides to do 
something radical they will try to figure out how to work with the 
confirming body on that, rather than just throwing it over the wall and 
saying "live with it."  But since it is very situational, I would 
hesitate to even write advice for the chair in that situation, much less 
rules.

Joel

Fred Baker wrote:
> this has resulted in the confirming bodies responding "you did not send 
> a complete list" and stonewalling. The nomcom would need a way to tell 
> the community that the IAB is feeling its oats again.
>

---

From: Fred Baker <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 7 May 2009 08:43:32 -0700

I agree with your characterization here. Unfortunately, the nomcom has  
found itself saying not "live with it" but "the rules don't allow us  
to be more explicit" - trying to do a good job and play by the rules  
has created some tough scenarios.

I think part of this relates to "bad events make bad law" - most of  
the rules here (including "don't send partial lists", which comes from  
an event that happened on my watch as nomcom chair) relate to "let's  
not have <> happen, which happened in <>". I actually think better  
rules in general would not preclude a behavior but would describe  
preferred behavior.

Coming back to Spencer's initial question, I think we are arriving at

<t>The list of nominees published should contain only the names of  
nominees who are willing to serve in a position under review.</t>

Is that correct?

On May 7, 2009, at 8:17 AM, Joel M. Halpern wrote:

> Those ways do not include trying to write text to cover all the  
> weird things reality can do to us.
>
> Thus, if they have only one nominee, and that nominee is someone  
> they are unhappy with, I don't think it takes extra text to tell  
> them "go try and find someone better."
> not, and they concluded that they can not appoint the one nominee,  
> then I do not think that writing special rules is either necessary  
> or useful.
>
> The philosophy of this document historically was to leave things up  
> to the judgment of the nominating committee and the nominating  
> committee chair.
>
> I also presume that having observed history, if the nomcom decides  
> to do something radical they will try to figure out how to work with  
> the confirming body on that, rather than just throwing it over the  
> wall and saying "live with it."  But since it is very situational, I  
> would hesitate to even write advice for the chair in that situation,  
> much less rules.
>
> Joel
>
> Fred Baker wrote:
>> send a complete list" and stonewalling. The nomcom would need a way  
>> to tell the community that the IAB is feeling its oats again.

---

From: Russ White <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 07 May 2009 09:18:16 -0400

> (And maybe they will come up with a new option, depending upon the exact

Agreed. It's best to find some other solution than padding.

:-)

Russ

- --
[email-masked] :: CCIE :: CCDE :: <>< Grace Alone

Extremism is a mental disorder in which a person actually believes
jumping off a fifty story building will kill you. We all know from
watching cartoons there is a high probability your shirt will be caught
on a flag pole.

---

From: "Joel M. Halpern" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 07 May 2009 12:12:55 -0400

That works for me.
Joel

Fred Baker wrote:
...

---

From: Ross Callon <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 7 May 2009 12:10:45 -0400

> nominees who are willing to serve in a position under review.</t>

This looks right to me. 

Ross

----------------------------------------------------

---

From: "Spencer Dawkins" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 7 May 2009 11:50:04 -0500

Hi, Thomas,

>> would

I agree, and I'm OK with adding text that makes this explicitly OK. Perhaps

  <t>The NomCom may publish requests for additional feedback on specific
   willing nominees, if the NomCom finds this useful.
  </t>

Thanks,

Spencer

---

From: "Spencer Dawkins" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 7 May 2009 12:00:05 -0500

Fred, Joel,

I am OK with where this sub-thread is ending up, except for one point - 
we've already tripped over the "can't confirm an incomplete slate" tripwire 
(as Fred pointed out), and this ended up with our first-ever NomCom process 
appeal.

NOT IN THIS DOCUMENT, I would like to say that NomComs are allowed to 
forward incomplete slates, if that's the best option in the NomCom's 
judgement, and that confirming bodies are allowed to confirm incomplete 
slates, just so we don't have the same situation in the future.

But that's kind of off-topic for this draft, so I'd suggest using a 
different draft to propose it.

Thanks for your feedback here.

Spencer

>found itself saying not "live with it" but "the rules don't allow us  to be 
>more explicit" - trying to do a good job and play by the rules  has created 
>some tough scenarios.
>
> I think part of this relates to "bad events make bad law" - most of  the 
> rules here (including "don't send partial lists", which comes from  an 
> event that happened on my watch as nomcom chair) relate to "let's  not 
> have <> happen, which happened in <>". I actually think better  rules in 
> general would not preclude a behavior but would describe  preferred 
> behavior.
>

---

From: Thomas Narten <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 07 May 2009 13:10:22 -0400

>    willing nominees, if the NomCom finds this useful.

I'm actually generally unhappy with this approach. To channel another
frequent voice, can we please stay away from making specific rules
that say "you can do this" or "you can't do that" designed to deal
with relatively narrow/specific situations? Such rules are not good
for dealing with future situations we haven't run into yet.

We should state what the principle is (and why the principle is
important), and leave judgement to the nomcom on the details of how to
apply the principle to specific situations.

We seem to coninually get into situations where the nomcom seems to
want to do X (because that makes sense and would seem to be in the
spirit of what was intended), but doesn't think the rules allow that,
because there is no specific rule that says exactly that, or existing
rules are interpreted in a narrow way to mean doing so would be a
process violation. We'd be much better off (generally) if the
principle were made clear.

In this case, the principle would seem to be that padding the list is
a bad idea because it wastes people's time. But that doesn't mean that
padding the list should be a process violation either.

Thomas

---

From: "Spencer Dawkins" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 7 May 2009 13:48:59 -0500

Hi, Thomas,

Hi, Thomas,

OK. The draft currently says 

 <t>In an attempt to maintain the required level of confidentiality, 
  past NomComs have also included
  "ringers" on the short list - nominees who have notified 
  NomCom that they are NOT willing
  to serve. Since anyone who sees the short list does not 
  know who the ringers are, 
  consciencious IETF participants also provide feedback on 
  nominees who have already 
  declined. This is a waste of precious IETF-participant cycles, 
  and Joel Halpern (2008-2009
  NomCom Chair) reports that "the ringer pool leaks like a sieve" 
  - it's also ineffective.
 </t>

Think that's sufficient?

Thanks,

Spencer

---

From: Andrew Lange <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 7 May 2009 12:38:48 -0700

Spencer,

I'd just like to affirm and agree with what I'm seeing as the  
consensus here:  Ringers/padding is not desired, it should be a SHOULD  
NOT at least, and strongly discouraged, but don't tie nomcom's hands  
in case some odd situation comes up that requires padding (I cannot  
see what this would, be, but then again it is the odd case.)

Andrew

---

From: Andrew Lange <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 7 May 2009 12:44:54 -0700

I split the thread, since this is not something that we're talking  
about for this document.

But I'd be willing go to further than "may confirm":

To make the confirmation process easier on the confirming body, NomCom  
should make every reasonable attempt to forward a complete slate of  
candidates. However, since conditions do arise where is it not in the  
best interests of the internet or the IETF to hold up the entire slate  
until a particularly difficult position is filled, the NomCom MAY  
forward an incomplete slate to the confirming body.   The confirming  
body MUST vote on the partial slate presented, and MAY NOT hold up the  
process simply because they want an entire slate.  If the confirming  
body has specific needs, beyond "slate completeness" they are  
encouraged to share that with the NomCom.

Andrew

On May 7, 2009, at 10:00 AM, Spencer Dawkins wrote:

> they
> >> the judgment of the nominating committee and the nominating   
> committee
> >> chair.
> >>

---

From: Christian Huitema <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 7 May 2009 14:12:49 -0700

> select. How does that fit with the idea of posting a single name and

It is a difficult problem. In difficult cases, it is good to rely on simple guidelines, such as, for example, "YOU SHALL NOT LIE." And padding is just that, a lie. Maybe a white lie, maybe a well intentioned lie, a lie nevertheless. If there are not enough name on the list, and the nomcom does not feel comfortable releasing them, then it should have an option, such as not writing any name, or writing a place holder such as "not enough candidates at this point."

-- Christian Huitema

---

From: Ross Callon <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 7 May 2009 22:53:12 -0400

>  ...This is a waste of precious IETF-participant cycles, 
>  and Joel Halpern (2008-2009 NomCom Chair) reports that 
>  "the ringer pool leaks like a sieve" - it's also ineffective.
>
> Think that's sufficient?

While I agree with Joel's statement, I would be inclined to make this a
bit less colloquial in the writeup, and change this to something like:

>  ...This is a waste of precious IETF-participant cycles, 
>  and there are widespread reports that strict confidentiality 
>  is not successfully maintained in terms of which candidates 
>  are "real", and which are included as "padding" (aka "ringers"). 

Ross

---

From: Bernie Hoeneisen <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 8 May 2009 11:25:49 +0200 (CEST)

>>  are "real", and which are included as "padding" (aka "ringers").

Great, we are making progress on the text!

One small correction:  s/candidates/nominees/
(Terminology: nominiee vs. candidate)

cheers,
  Bernie

---

From: Barry Leiba <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 8 May 2009 10:58:34 -0400

> maybe "do not need to pad..."

I think there's value to the community in knowing that the list is
short.  And I think that the less padding that goes on, the more we'll
all expect that the lists aren't padded, so the more misleading the
odd padded list will be.

Where's the value?

I'd go for never padding, ever.

Barry

---

From: Robert Elz <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 09 May 2009 00:07:43 +0700

Date:        Thu, 7 May 2009 14:12:49 -0700
    From:        Christian Huitema <[email-masked]>
    Message-ID:  <[email-masked]>

  | It is a difficult problem. In difficult cases, it is good to rely
  | on simple guidelines, such as, for example, "YOU SHALL NOT LIE."

That's good, but causes other problems.

I will phrase the following in terms of the nomcom soliciting opinions
about nominees for particular positions, as I still don't think the
nominee list should be published at all, and I refuse to say anything that
might be construed as a change of opinion on that...

Consider where the nomcom has 3 nominees for a position (say internet AD).
Call them A B and C.   The nomcom asks for opinions about those 3
nominees.   It happens C is also nominated for another position, say
security AD.   Somewhere during the deliberations, it becomes pretty
clear that C is going to be appointed security AD.   At this point,
if the nomcom asks "which of A B and C would be a good internet AD?"
wouldn't that be just as much a lie as adding a ringer, even though
C is still (technically) a nominee for internet AD?

And wouldn't asking that question be wasting the community's time almost
as much as adding ringers?

Because of that, I would suggest that the doc make clear that the
nomcom isn't required to include the complete list of nominees in
any question it asks, in the case above (before C is selected as
security AD), it could ask WG chair X: "What do you think of A and B
as internet AD?", and ask WG chair Y: "What do you think of B and C
as internet AD?", and ask WG chair Z: "What do you think of A and C
as internet AD?"

One might imagine X replying, "B would be good, I don't think much of A",
and Y replying "C would be OK, probably better at security though, but
B is better for internet AD, great to see you're not considering that
moron A", and Z replying "C is OK I guess, A is an idiot, why the hell aren't
you considering B?".

With this, the changing list of nominees, as some are rendered
unavailable - either because they're appointed (earmarked anyway)
elsewhere, or because they're simply struck off the list as
inappropriate, never becomes obvious, no-one ever knows that
a name is no longer on the list, as no-one is even really expecting
to see the complete list of nominees.

Also, while I am here ...

The issue of what to do with an incomplete slate because there was only
one nominee and the nomcom doesn't want to appoint that person is just
too silly to consider - not because it couldn't happen, but because it
is just a special case of "there is no candidate for this position".

What is the nomcom supposed to do if no-one volunteers for a position, and
no-one can be coerced into it?    If forwarding an incomplete slate of
candidates is not permitted, the whole process deadlocks, and that's
just absurd.

On dealing with this question [email-masked] said:
(as one of the possible solutions) ...

  | - reopening the call for nominations with a higher level of "enhanced
  | recruiting techniques" (sorry for the GITMO reference), or 

which exposes an erroneous (or should be erroneous) mindset - it looks
to me as if too many people are still looking at the nomcom process as
something akin to a parliamentary (congressional if you like) election.
For those things, they have, for good reason, deadlines on nominations -
put in your nomination one minute after the deadline, and you're
excluded.

That's not relevant here, not even close - the question of "reopening
the call for nominations" should never arise, as nominations should
never be closed until the position is filled - which happens at the time
the annoouncement is sent to ietf-announce (well after confirmation).

At any time before then, it should be possible to send in a new nomination.

Of course, once the nomcom has selected its candidate, there's no
requirement that it ever go back and re-open the issue, unless it
decides that is what it wants to do, so very late nominations stand a good
chance of being futile - but that's no reason to have a rule forbidding
such things, or for ever giving the impression that any particular deadline
must be met for a nomination to be legitimate.

kre

---

From: "Andrew G. Malis" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 8 May 2009 13:15:59 -0400

+1, emphatically!

---

From: "Jeffrey A. Williams" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 08 May 2009 11:06:05 -0700

Barry and all,

  FWIW, I can't see the need for a "List" of candidates in the first
place.  Why not just allow for self nomination or nomination by
others?

> I'd go for never padding, ever.

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

---

From: Barry Leiba <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 8 May 2009 14:10:32 -0400

> place.  Why not just allow for self nomination or nomination by

That's what we have.  But at some point, the time for nominations is
over, and we have a list of nominees for the NomCom to work with (and
for the community to comment on).  Sometimes, when that time comes,
few people have been nominated, whether by themselves or by others.
That's what we're addressing here.

Do you not understand that, or do I misunderstand your comment?

Barry

---

From: "Spencer Dawkins" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 8 May 2009 09:10:19 -0500

Hi, Bernie,

... no one gets this right the first time ;-) ...

Thanks,

Spencer

---

From: "Jeffrey A. Williams" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 08 May 2009 12:31:15 -0700

Barry and all,

  I understood your comment/ remark.  Yet I've seen no one
yet nominated or self nominate.  Hence my original response.
So you must have misunderstood my comment.  Sorry about that.
Do you understand now?

Regards,

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 08 May 2009 18:13:06 -0400

--On Friday, May 08, 2009 14:10 -0400 Barry Leiba
<[email-masked]> wrote:

>...
>  But at some point, the time for nominations is
> over, and we have a list of nominees for the NomCom to work
> with (and for the community to comment on).  Sometimes, when
> that time comes, few people have been nominated, whether by
> themselves or by others. That's what we're addressing here.
>...

Barry, 

What we have, unless _I_ misunderstand things, is a date on
which initial nominations are closed.  That date exists for the
convenience of both the community and the Nomcom.  But the
Nomcom is free, at almost any time up to when it makes its
decision, to decide it needs more nominees or that someone not
yet nominated would be ideal for the job.  If it makes that
decision, it is free to go out and start arm-twisting (or
whatever else it takes).  Indeed, if it isn't satisfied with the
nominees it has, I believe that it is obligated to do that.

While I've got misgivings about the present proposal, I can live
with it, but not if it contains provisions that can be
interpreted as any of...

	-- preventing the Nomcom from doing active and selective
	recruiting (or makes the Nomcom passive wrt what
	nominations are considered, which amounts to the same
	thing)
	
	-- preventing the Nomcom from going recruiting after
	nominations have formally closed and it has started to
	consider candidates
	
	-- preventing the Nomcom from considering (or even
	selecting) a nominee/ potential candidate whose name had
	not been exposed to the community on one or more short
	(or not-so-short) lists.

In essence, no matter what one thinks about the desirability of
giving the community more information so that the Nomcom gets
more and better information, if the mechanism for doing so has
the side-effect of reducing the Nomcom's flexibility and/or
sense of responsibility, it is probably a bad idea.

Just IMO,
   john

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 08 May 2009 18:19:51 -0400

+1

I think there are a series of important principles here,
including the implied ability of the Nomcom to decide to not
fill some positions, and that no decision that is made about
exposing names should --accidentally or deliberately-- be
permitted to violate those principles.

   john

--On Saturday, May 09, 2009 00:07 +0700 Robert Elz
<[email-masked]> wrote:

>     From:        Christian Huitema
> <[email-masked]>     Message-ID:
> <[email-masked]
> roup.windeploy.ntdev.microsoft.com>
> 
>   | It is a difficult problem. In difficult cases, it is good
> to rely   | on simple guidelines, such as, for example, "YOU
> SHALL NOT LIE."
> 
> I will phrase the following in terms of the nomcom soliciting
> opinions about nominees for particular positions, as I still
> don't think the nominee list should be published at all, and I
> refuse to say anything that might be construed as a change of
> opinion on that...
> 
> Consider where the nomcom has 3 nominees for a position (say
> internet AD). Call them A B and C.   The nomcom asks for
> opinions about those 3 nominees.   It happens C is also
> nominated for another position, say security AD.   Somewhere
> during the deliberations, it becomes pretty clear that C is
> going to be appointed security AD.   At this point, if the
> nomcom asks "which of A B and C would be a good internet AD?"
> wouldn't that be just as much a lie as adding a ringer, even
> though C is still (technically) a nominee for internet AD?
> 
> And wouldn't asking that question be wasting the community's
> time almost as much as adding ringers?
> 
> Because of that, I would suggest that the doc make clear that
> the nomcom isn't required to include the complete list of
> nominees in any question it asks, in the case above (before C
> is selected as security AD), it could ask WG chair X: "What do
> you think of A and B as internet AD?", and ask WG chair Y:
> "What do you think of B and C as internet AD?", and ask WG
> chair Z: "What do you think of A and C as internet AD?"
> 
> One might imagine X replying, "B would be good, I don't think
> much of A", and Y replying "C would be OK, probably better at
> security though, but B is better for internet AD, great to see
> you're not considering that moron A", and Z replying "C is OK
> I guess, A is an idiot, why the hell aren't you considering
> B?".
> 
> unavailable - either because they're appointed (earmarked
> anyway) elsewhere, or because they're simply struck off the
> list as inappropriate, never becomes obvious, no-one ever
> knows that a name is no longer on the list, as no-one is even
> really expecting to see the complete list of nominees.
> 
> The issue of what to do with an incomplete slate because there
> was only one nominee and the nomcom doesn't want to appoint
> that person is just too silly to consider - not because it
> couldn't happen, but because it is just a special case of
> "there is no candidate for this position".
> 
> What is the nomcom supposed to do if no-one volunteers for a
> position, and no-one can be coerced into it?    If forwarding
> an incomplete slate of candidates is not permitted, the whole
> process deadlocks, and that's just absurd.
> 
>   | - reopening the call for nominations with a higher level
> of "enhanced   | recruiting techniques" (sorry for the GITMO
> reference), or 
> 
> which exposes an erroneous (or should be erroneous) mindset -
> it looks to me as if too many people are still looking at the
> nomcom process as something akin to a parliamentary
> (congressional if you like) election. For those things, they
> have, for good reason, deadlines on nominations - put in your
> nomination one minute after the deadline, and you're excluded.
> 
> That's not relevant here, not even close - the question of
> "reopening the call for nominations" should never arise, as
> nominations should never be closed until the position is
> filled - which happens at the time the annoouncement is sent
> to ietf-announce (well after confirmation).
> 
> Of course, once the nomcom has selected its candidate, there's
> no requirement that it ever go back and re-open the issue,
> unless it decides that is what it wants to do, so very late
> nominations stand a good chance of being futile - but that's
> no reason to have a rule forbidding such things, or for ever
> giving the impression that any particular deadline must be met
> for a nomination to be legitimate.
> 
> kre
>

---

From: SM <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 09 May 2009 04:10:41 -0700

>put in your nomination one minute after the deadline, and you're

NomCom is an undemocratic process used to choose the "best person for 
the job".  It is not about choosing someone representative of the 
IETF community.  The community can nominate a candidate.  At the 
individual level, a person can nominate himself/herself.  The end 
results is a list.  It is not "the" list of all candidates.  There is 
nothing forbidding NomCom from finding someone who is not on the original list.

The list is not a list of all possible nominees.  It should be seen 
more as a list of people on which NomCom is seeking feedback for the 
selection.  That's why the list is being published.  There has been a 
practice to create a hypothetical situation (padding the list) to get 
around the "rule on confidentiality".  I don't see the purpose of 
tweaking the rules to say what is not confidential.  Quoting Section 
3 of RFC 3777:

      "All deliberations and supporting information that relates to
       specific nominees, candidates, and confirmed candidates are
       confidential.

       The nominating committee and confirming body members will be
       exposed to confidential information as a result of their
       deliberations, their interactions with those they consult, and
       from those who provide requested supporting information.  All
       members and all other participants are expected to handle this
       information in a manner consistent with its sensitivity."

That clearly spells out that it is the deliberations and "supporting 
information" that are confidential.  Anything else should not be 
viewed as confidential.  The second paragraph I quoted provides 
NomCom with the discretion on how to handle sensitive information and 
gives it some leeway in collecting feedback about the candidates.  It 
does not say that the information is confidential.  I note that the 
model is not about evaluating a candidate on the basis of their 
application only.  The model also doesn't require NomCom to justify 
their selection (why candidate X was selected instead of candidate Y).

The following was from a different thread.

>nominees it has, I believe that it is obligated to do that.

There is a period set for the IETF community to nominate 
people.  NomCom can add other candidates after the period.  I would 
rather view that as the discretion NomCom is given so that it can 
fulfill its principal functions instead of an obligation (must do it).

>with it, but not if it contains provisions that can be

draft-dawkins-nomcom-openlist-02 proposes to allow NomCom to disclose 
the list of nominees.  It then goes into specifying that the 
published list is intended to be a complete list.  By doing so, 
NomCom may find itself with less discretion in picking nominees.  It 
is better for NomCom to be able to provide the community with a list 
of nominees on which it solicits feedback with the option to update the list.

>         not been exposed to the community on one or more short

Setting a deadline for the publication may hamper NomCom's ability to 
do the above.  I prefer to see a list that is considered as "work in 
progress".  Leave it to NomCom to determine when to publish their 
"request for feedback" and how often they want to update that.

One concern about having an open list is that it would lead to 
"lobbying".  I guess that it is already being done subtly under the 
guise of feedback.  If people want to provide "statements of 
support", there aren't any rules to stop them from doing it.  If the 
IETF community views that as "undesirable" behavior, it can frown on 
such a practice.  Bear in mind that NomCom is the "electing body" and 
it takes its responsibility seriously.

I'll purport that it is up to the members of the I* bodies to ensure 
that there is a possible replacement.  Otherwise, they will leave a 
legacy similar to Louis XV.

Regards,
-sm

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 09 May 2009 10:57:11 -0400

--On Saturday, May 09, 2009 04:10 -0700 SM <[email-masked]>
wrote:

>...
> The list is not a list of all possible nominees.  It should be
> seen more as a list of people on which NomCom is seeking
> feedback for the selection.  That's why the list is being
> published.  There has been a practice to create a hypothetical
> situation (padding the list) to get around the "rule on
> confidentiality".  I don't see the purpose of tweaking the
> rules to say what is not confidential.
>...

While I had not thought about it that way, I think the notion of
clarifying just how much discretion the Nomcom has is a better
idea than trying to make a new set of rules.  The Nomcom should
be (and is) clearly barred from exposing the content of its own
deliberations about specific candidates, comparisons among
candidates, and information submitted with a clear expectation
of confidentiality are not exposed, but little else.

If the community wants to clarify the current rules to make it
clear that the Nomcom can expose _a_ list of nominees at a point
of the Nomcom's choosing, that is probably ok (I share kre's
belief that it is probably a bad idea, but we appear to be in
the minority).  But let's not move beyond that into trying to
tie the Nomcom up in specifics that would constrain its
discretion and ability to do its job.

> people.  NomCom can add other candidates after the period.  I
> would rather view that as the discretion NomCom is given so
> that it can fulfill its principal functions instead of an
> obligation (must do it).

The "obligation" comment was based on the following reasoning.
The Nomcom has something of an obligation to place candidates
into roles for which those candidates are optimal choices
(possibly not the only optimal choices, of course).  Now suppose
that, after evaluation of all nominees who came through the
"normal" and early nomination process, the Nomcom has a choice
between"

	(a) A "least-bad" candidate with whom the Nomcom is not
	satisfied and may not be satisfied that the candidate
	can and will do the job well.
	
	(b) Not filling the position, leaving the relevant body
	with the necessity to cope with being short-handed.
	
	(c) Mounting an aggressive search and recruitment
	campaign.

>From my point of view, the first choice is unacceptable (even
though I suspect it has been used in the past).  And I would
hope that the Nomcom would feel obligated to try the third
before selecting the second.   Also from my point of view, the
second is not an obviously bad choice: it might force the
relevant body to reconsider and adjust its own scope, workload,
etc. and the requirement for that  is, IMO, an appropriate
message for a Nomcom to send.

> draft-dawkins-nomcom-openlist-02 proposes to allow NomCom to
> disclose the list of nominees.  It then goes into specifying
> that the published list is intended to be a complete list.  By
> doing so, NomCom may find itself with less discretion in
> picking nominees.  
>...

Exactly.

    john

---

From: Barry Leiba <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 9 May 2009 17:03:27 -0400

On Fri, May 8, 2009 at 6:13 PM, John C Klensin <[email-masked]> wrote:
> whatever else it takes).

In other words, while we have a date by which nominations are
expected, nominations are never really closed.  I fully agree.

My only concern with actually saying that is that I'd worry that it'd
prompt people to ignore the deadlines completely.  Though, on thinking
about it, I don't imagine it'd be a real problem.  The NomCom is free
to give little notice to "late" nominations if it wants to, and it's
in everyone's best interest for it to pick a stellar candidate even if
her nomination was "late".

Barry

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 09 May 2009 18:54:55 -0400

--On Saturday, May 09, 2009 5:03 PM -0400 Barry Leiba 
<[email-masked]> wrote:

> My only concern with actually saying that is that I'd worry
> that it'd prompt people to ignore the deadlines completely.
> Though, on thinking about it, I don't imagine it'd be a real
> problem.  The NomCom is free to give little notice to "late"
> nominations if it wants to, and it's in everyone's best
> interest for it to pick a stellar candidate even if her
> nomination was "late".

Exactly.  If we need to be explicit, it should include the 
observation that the Nomcom may, at its discretion, completely 
ignore anything that comes in after the deadline.

    john

---

From: Robert Elz <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 10 May 2009 11:55:40 +0700

Date:        Sat, 09 May 2009 18:54:55 -0400
    From:        John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
    Message-ID:  <30F4F99D7834055BBFB7674E@[192.168.1.110]>

  | Exactly.  If we need to be explicit, it should include the 
  | observation that the Nomcom may, at its discretion, completely 
  | ignore anything that comes in after the deadline.

No, that's entirely the wrong message - there is, and should be, no
deadline - the date on the call for nominations should be the date after
which the nomcom will start actively considering what has been submitted
to it - and so, the later after that a nomination is made, the less likely
it is to be given much weight (all depending upon circumstances, if the
position is already essentially filled, only an outstanding nomination
would even be examined, I assume, whereas if a position has no current viable
takers, almost any nomination, any time, would get serious thought.)

There's no reason to tell the nomcom they have discretion to ignore
anything after some mythical deadline - they have the discretion to ignore
anything, anytime, for any reason.

[The rest or this message isn't addressed to John K, the "you" below is
the plural you for the whole IETF.]

Once again, the nomcom is selected to appoint the I* (and whoever),
they're not selected to decide who the community wants to be on the I*.
The nomcom appoints who the nomcom think will do the best job for the IETF
as a whole, not what any of the rest of us think.    Of course, no-one
expects the nomcom members to know everything there is to know about
every nominee, so they're free to ask for advice from the community, or
any part of it (confidentially) - they're free to ask, they're not, and
shouldn't be, required to ask.

This is (one of) the reasons I'm not in favour of publishing lists of
nominees - it is giving the impression that the nomcom is supposed to
be soliciting opinions from everyone, and acting upon them - I have seen
opinions expressed that that's exactly why this change is being made, to
make sure everyone has the chance to express their opinion, as if everyone's
opinion is required, or even matters - neither is or should be true.

I truly wish that everyone would let go of the election model from their
mindsets.   Instead imagine that your company (or some company you know of)
has just lost its CFO (retired, died, promoted, imprisoned, .. whatever)
and needs a new one.   The board appoint a committee to find a replacement
CFO.   Imagine the way they go about that task - many of you probably have
some experience of something like this at some stage or other.  That
committee is exactly the model the nomcom should be following - seeking 
the best possible available person to fill the open job.

Once you start seeing it that way, instead of as some kind of election,
the way it is expected to work alters dramatically.

kre

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 10 May 2009 06:10:58 -0400

--On Sunday, May 10, 2009 11:55 AM +0700 Robert Elz 
<[email-masked]> wrote:

>   | observation that the Nomcom may, at its discretion,
> completely    | ignore anything that comes in after the
> deadline.
>
> No, that's entirely the wrong message - there is, and should
> be, no deadline - the date on the call for nominations should
> be the date after which the nomcom will start actively
> considering what has been submitted to it - and so, the later
> after that a nomination is made, the less likely it is to be
> given much weight (all depending upon circumstances, if the
> position is already essentially filled, only an outstanding
> nomination would even be examined, I assume, whereas if a
> position has no current viable takers, almost any nomination,
> any time, would get serious thought.)

Actually, I think we agree.   I might have better expressed what 
I was trying to say with:

    If folks insist in thinking about the nominal "close of
    nominations" date as a "deadline" or "cutoff", or of setting
    a date after which a snapshot of names being considered will
    be posted, then it is worth reinforcing the principle that
    the Nomcom is free to either give careful consideration to
    names received after that date or to ignore them, at its
    discretion.

I believe that thinking about things in terms of deadlines or 
cutoffs is a bad idea, but can probably live with it.

The general principles here apply to other things as well.  For 
example, a Nomcom that decides to use questionnaires is not 
required to insist that every nominee fill them out, nor to 
reject a nominee who declines to do so -- its obligation is to 
take responsibility for finding the best candidates, not to 
pretend that it can substitute mechanical following of rules, 
rituals, or scoring formulae for that responsibility.

I also agree that this is a nomination/selection committee, not 
an election, and that election models do not serve us well. 
And, while it may not seem relevant at first glance, if we have 
really managed to get to the point at which Nomcom members have 
so little knowledge of the community that their only option is 
to collect and tabulate long questionnaires and to try to 
consult everyone who has an opinion, we need to think about 
finding an entirely different model, not trying to make small 
clarifications or adjustments to the confidentiality rules.

> This is (one of) the reasons I'm not in favour of publishing
> lists of nominees - it is giving the impression that the
> nomcom is supposed to be soliciting opinions from everyone,
> and acting upon them - I have seen opinions expressed that
> that's exactly why this change is being made, to make sure
> everyone has the chance to express their opinion, as if
> everyone's opinion is required, or even matters - neither is
> or should be true.

It has another bad consequence, which is that, if there are 
people who are sensitive about publication of their names, they 
have an incentive to delay informing the Nomcom of their 
willingness to serve until after names are posted (or until the 
likely posting cutoff has passed).   Because one would hope that 
a clearly-superior option would be considered whenever (and 
however) it came onto the table, unnecessarily late submission 
of "nominations" risks wasting Nomcom time, which is not 
desirable.

     john

---

From: "Joel M. Halpern" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 10 May 2009 10:34:27 -0400

If all the nomcom could do was "collect and tabulate long questionnaires 
and try to consult everyone who has an opinion" we would indeed have a 
serious problem.

However, there is a long distance between that and the nomcom having 
enough information in and of itself to judge the nominees and select the 
candidates.

The nomcom needs input to do its job.  It may have been the case when 
the procedure was originally envisioned that the job could be done 
without questionnaires, and wihtout extensive input collection.  But 
nobody can know the necessary parts of the community well enough now.

So input collection is necessary.  Not for tabulation.  But for gaining 
understanding.  (Which is why I sent my earlier note about what I 
observed to be useful input, and included that information in my report 
I-D.  Even though that has no direct effect on the rules.)

But, the current procedure means that the nomcom gets a limited set of 
input.  It also means that the nomcom makes those providing the input do 
extra work if they are doing their part well.

Letting the community as a whole see the list of folks who have been 
nominated (without any indication of whether they nominated themselves, 
were nominated by others, whatever), and allowing community members to 
see and comment on those names, helps the nomcom get better input. 
Yes, it also means that the nomcom probably has to pay a little more 
attention to electioneering, so as to extract the information about the 
nominees skills and abilities, rather than about their social 
connectness.  But that is already part of the nomcom's job.

No, this is not an election.
RFC 3777 does state that there shall be schedules and deadlines.  My 
read of the purpose of the specific deadline for nomination is that it 
serves to tell the community that if they want someone seriously 
considered they should make sure the name gets in before the deadline. 
That is not a promise by the committee to seriously consider such a 
person, but a warning that after the deadline, the odds go up that the 
nomcom will decide for its won reasons to ignore the input.  (For 
example, if someone provides a nomination after the nomcom has selected 
a candidate but not had that person confirmed, the nomcom is far more 
likely to do a cursory ~is this new person really much better~, decide 
"no", and go on with the process.)

I agree that the wording has to be clear that the nomcom is free to add 
people to the pool at any time, for any reason, on any basis it decides.
My own take on how to handle that is to simply state that if individuals 
are added as nominees later, their names are added to the public list. 
This makes it clear that names can be added later, and indicates how 
that interacts with the publication process.
There should be no requirement for how long a name must be in the pool 
before the nomcom submits it for confirmation (and that process is not 
public.)

Yours,
Joel M. Halpern

John C Klensin wrote:
...
> I also agree that this is a nomination/selection committee, not an 
> election, and that election models do not serve us well. And, while it 
> may not seem relevant at first glance, if we have really managed to get 
> to the point at which Nomcom members have so little knowledge of the 
> community that their only option is to collect and tabulate long 
> questionnaires and to try to consult everyone who has an opinion, we 
> need to think about finding an entirely different model, not trying to 
> make small clarifications or adjustments to the confidentiality rules.

---

From: SM <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 10 May 2009 05:03:08 -0700

>(possibly not the only optimal choices, of course).  Now suppose

My previous comment about the list oversimplified the matter.  It 
does not address the question of making the optimal choices.  kre 
discussed about that in his message.  We have been talking about 
announcing a list of willing candidates.  It's more than one list as 
it's various roles in the different bodies that are being 
filled.  There can be permutations to reach the optimal choice.

>message for a Nomcom to send.

I find the first choice unacceptable as well.  One of the problems 
with a static list is that we can end up with such a choice.  I am 
not so keen about the second choice.  However, I won't label it as 
bad as there are circumstances where NomCom might want to send a 
message to the confirming body.  In a previous iteration of BCP 10, 
it was clearly spelled out that the principal function of the 
nominating committee is to recruit and nominate candidates (option 
three).  For that to be possible, NomCom should not be constrained 
with a list of (willing) nominees.

Regards,
-sm

---

From: SM <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 10 May 2009 09:45:44 -0700

>takers, almost any nomination, any time, would get serious thought.)

Having a "best before" date gives NomCom more time to consider the 
information submitted.    What you are suggesting is a continuous 
process.  I'm not against having that.   The "no current viable 
takers" is not a reason to pick almost any nomination.  I think that 
Option three suggested by John is more appropriate.

>anything, anytime, for any reason.

BCP 10 specifies a set of rules.  Anything unspecified is at the 
discretion of the committee.  If you want NomCom to be able to ignore 
anything, change the rules instead of telling NomCom that they have 
the discretion to ignore anything.  For example, don't specify a 
deadline for nominations.

>they're not selected to decide who the community wants to be on the I*.

This is a good point.

>opinion is required, or even matters - neither is or should be true.

Participants have an incentive to suggest new nominees if they know 
who are being considered.  One of the problems of having a large 
number of IETF participants is that it is difficult for the people to 
get to know each other.  If NomCom relies only on feedback from WG 
Chairs etc. and the person is not known to these people, there won't 
be adequate feedback.  Having said that, having an open list opens up 
a new set of problems.

Regards,
-sm

---

From: Lars Eggert <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 11 May 2009 14:07:09 +0300

Agree.

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 10 May 2009 14:40:11 -0400

--On Sunday, May 10, 2009 10:34 AM -0400 "Joel M. Halpern" 
<[email-masked]> wrote:

>...
> I agree that the wording has to be clear that the nomcom is
> free to add people to the pool at any time, for any reason, on
> any basis it decides.
> My own take on how to handle that is to simply state that if
> individuals are added as nominees later, their names are added
> to the public list. This makes it clear that names can be
> added later, and indicates how that interacts with the
> publication process.

Joel,

With the understanding that I don't have much sympathy for 
someone who wants one of these positions but submits his or her 
name late, if the Nomcom concludes that it has to go recruiting, 
identify a person whom they want to have in the role, and then 
convince him or her to "volunteer", I think there should be as 
few impediments to the person accepting as possible.  That means 
that, if such individuals are reluctant to have their names 
exposed if they are not selected, the Nomcom should have the 
discretion to agree to that restriction.

So "...are added as nominees later, their names are added to the 
public list unless the Nomcom concludes that doing so is not in 
the best interest of the community" works for me.  A firm rule 
does not.

    john

---

From: "Spencer Dawkins" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 11 May 2009 10:47:19 -0500

I'd like to thank several people for pointing out the additional constraints 
that were included in text I'd published previously.

At this point, it's looking like the draft should say "may publish a list of 
willing nominees in order to get community feedback". I'm making that 
change.

I'm not feeling good about allowing "padding", based on discussions we've 
had on this mailing list, so I'll defer text changes in that direction.

The normative changes being proposed to RFC 3777 are as follows:

 <t><list>
  <t>The list of nominees willing to serve in positions under review
   in the current NomCom cycle is not confidential.
   The NomCom may publish a list of names of willing nominees to the 
community,
   in order to obtain feedback from the community on these nominees.
   <vspace blankLines='1' />

  <t>The NomCom may publish an updated list if the NomCom identifies 
errors/omissions
   in a previously-published version of the public list, or if the NomCom 
finds
   it necessary to call for additional nominees, and these nominees indicate
   a willingness to serve in time to be considered by the NomCom.
   <vspace blankLines='1' />
  </t>

  <t>The list of nominees published for a specific position
   should contain only the names of
   nominees who are willing to serve in the position under review.
   <vspace blankLines='1' />
  </t>

  <t>Feedback on willing nominees should always be provided privately to 
NomCom.
   Willing nominees
   should not solicit support, and other IETF community members should
   not post statements of support/non-support for nominees,
   <vspace blankLines='1' />
  </t>

 </list></t>

Comments are, as always, graciously accepted.

Thanks,

Spencer

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 11 May 2009 12:32:35 -0400

--On Monday, May 11, 2009 10:47 -0500 Spencer Dawkins
<[email-masked]> wrote:

> I'd like to thank several people for pointing out the
> additional constraints that were included in text I'd
> published previously.
> 
> At this point, it's looking like the draft should say "may
> publish a list of willing nominees in order to get community
> feedback". I'm making that change.
> 
> I'm not feeling good about allowing "padding", based on
> discussions we've had on this mailing list, so I'll defer text
> changes in that direction.

Spencer, 

FWIW, my personal recommendation is that you make it very clear
--much more clear than it is now -- that "may" (and even
"should") in these various sentences has move or less the 2119
meaning, i.e., that the community is giving the Nomcom general
guidance, but that the Nomcom is free to do what it thinks
necessary and/or desirable and that it is not obligated to
explain its reasoning to the community if it doesn't follow the
guidance.

Without that, "...The NomCom may publish an updated list if the
NomCom identifies errors/omissions in a previously-published
version..." isn't nearly good enough.  And, even then, I'd
rather see "...updated list if, for example, ...".  In other
words, if they can publish an updated list at all (which is
clearly the direction in which things are headed), they (i) are
not required to do so, regardless of the circumstances, unless
they conclude it would be useful and (ii) are permitted to do so
under any circumstances that seem wise to them, whether either
of the two example conditions occur.

That also "fixes" the padding statement, since it says "should
contain" and SHOULD leaves the Nomcom room to pad if it
concludes that the best interests of the community would be
served in that specific case by padding.  To give one such
example, a Nomcom might have a legitimate interest in
understanding how the community would compare the strengths and
weaknesses of a particular nominee to those of a hypothetical
nominee who was not willing or able to serve.

    john

---

From: "Spencer Dawkins" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 11 May 2009 12:17:34 -0500

Hi, John,

Keeping in mind that I was asked to do a small 3777 revision ...

... RFC 3777 doesn't use the 2119 terminology boilerplate, but DOES use 
(lowercased) "must", "should", and "may" throughout the current text. I'm 
hoping that current practice in interpreting these terms would be sufficient 
for a small 3777 revision, and I'm thinking I'd be overreaching to include 
an explanation of NomCom process-as-guidance in a small 3777 revision.

I do agree with the notion that we should prefer guidance to rules - I'm 
just not sure that can happen in finite time, and the timeframe that was 
shared with me was a desire for this year's NomCom to be able to ask "the 
other half of the community" for input (since we seem to ask about half the 
community for input now, based on the IETF 74 show of hands at plenary).

Adding "for example", as you suggested, is obviously the right thing to do, 
of course. Thanks for feedback, as always.

Spencer

---

From: Thomas Narten <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 12 May 2009 10:16:49 -0400

I'd still really like to see more context about what the intention
here is, rather than just listing rules. How about something like:

     The list of nominees willing to serve in positions under review
     in the current NomCom cycle is not confidential.  The NomCom should
     publish a list of names of willing nominees to the community, in
     order to obtain feedback from the community on these nominees.

1st paragraph is same as proposed, but then drop the second paragraph and
continue with paragraph 3 (unchanged):

     The list of nominees published for a specific position should
     contain only the names of nominees who are willing to serve in
     the position under review.

For paragraph 4, I've added some text at the end (in CAPS for clarity):
     
     Feedback on willing nominees should always be provided privately
     to NomCom.  Willing nominees should not solicit support, and
     other IETF community members should not post statements of
     support/non-support for nominees IN ANY PUBLIC FORA (E.G.,
     MAILING LIST)

Then add:

     Discussion: Prior to this document, the names of willing nominees
     was considered confidential and not disclosed publically. The
     community has long had differing views on this rule. Many have
     argued that the lack of a published list made it difficult for
     the community to provide adequate feedback to the nomcom. Others
     have argued that publishing such a list could lead to campaigning
     and other undesireable behaviors.

     The intention of relaxing this rule is to have the nomcom publish
     a list of willing candidates so that the community has the
     ability to provide feedback on those being considered for
     service. However, the nomcom is also chartered to find the best
     candidate for any particular position. Even after an initial list
     of willing nominees has been compiled, the nomcom is expected to
     continue to actively recruit additional nominees, especially in
     cases where the nominee pool is deemed insufficient. While the
     nomcom is encouraged to publish all names when it can, it is not
     required to do so in cases that could interfere with its ability
     to find the best candidate, e.g., where a nominee is not willing
     to have their name published, or where a nominee is found
     relatively late in the process, etc.

Thoughts?

Thomas

---

From: Eric Rosen <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 12 May 2009 10:37:38 -0400

> Willing nominees should not solicit support

Are you  under the impression  that this does  not happen today?   Maybe the
rule should be  "willing nominees should pretend publicly  that they are not
soliciting support".

> While the nomcom is encouraged to publish all names when it can, it is not
> required to do so in cases that could interfere with its ability to find
> the best candidate, e.g., where a nominee is not willing to have their
> name published, or where a nominee is found relatively late in the
> process, etc.

You could drive a truck through this loophole.

Either the nomcom is required to maintain a publicly accessible list of
willing candidates (and only willing candidates) for each position, or else
it isn't.  It makes no sense at all to say that the nomcom is required to
maintain the list except when it doesn't want to do so.

Either adopt the rule or not.  Let's not go through the pretense of adopting
the rule while allowing loopholes that amount to maintaining the status quo.

---

From: Thomas Narten <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 12 May 2009 10:45:05 -0400

> rule should be  "willing nominees should pretend publicly  that they are not

Actually, this text comes from earlier. Personally, I think we may be
going too far in saying one should not solicit support. That is pretty
extreme. And it may even be OK to say "I've thrown my hat into the
ring, please send comments to the nomcom". Or some such. But it is
also not necessary. The whole point of publishing a list is making it
easy for folk to see that you have thrown your name into the ring....

But there is a slippery slope here. And I think we do not want
discussion of individual candidates to ever take place on public
mailing lists. So some sort of guidance is needed. (We should't try to
regulate what goes on in private, however, as enforcement is tricky)

> You could drive a truck through this loophole.

Yep. If a nomcom is hellbent on ignoring any SHOULD type rule, it can
do so. But the fix to that is not to make iron-clan MUST rules, since
the bigger problem is that the nomcom is out of control and is not
acting in accordance with the communities wishes.

> the rule while allowing loopholes that amount to maintaining the status quo.

The difficulty really isn't with publishing "an initial list", but
what happens if/when the nomcom wants to add a name for consideration
late in the process.

Thomas

---

From: "Spencer Dawkins" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 12 May 2009 10:16:12 -0500

For what it's worth...

> easy for folk to see that you have thrown your name into the ring....

Yes, that's what I was thinking when I wrote the text - I could have written 
text that allowed this, but i couldn't see a reason that this should be 
necessary.

> regulate what goes on in private, however, as enforcement is tricky)

I'm looking at http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/09mar/plenaryw.html, which 
says

"Russ asks who believes that we need to do anything that describes what is 
acceptable nominee behaviour.

many hums

a few more hums"

I was perfectly OK with not including guidance about this (and letting 
people who think the NomCom can be campaigned successfully knock themselves 
out), but that's not the feedback Russ got at plenary.

Thanks,

Spencer

---

From: Russ White <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 11 May 2009 11:55:35 -0400

This wording looks good, covering the cases well.

:-)

Russ

Spencer Dawkins wrote:
> I'd like to thank several people for pointing out the additional
> constraints that were included in text I'd published previously.
> 
> At this point, it's looking like the draft should say "may publish a
> list of willing nominees in order to get community feedback". I'm making
> that change.
> 
> I'm not feeling good about allowing "padding", based on discussions
> we've had on this mailing list, so I'll defer text changes in that
> direction.
>

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 12 May 2009 13:33:46 -0400

--On Tuesday, May 12, 2009 10:16 -0400 Thomas Narten
<[email-masked]> wrote:

> I'd still really like to see more context about what the
> intention here is, rather than just listing rules. How about
> something like:
> 
>      The list of nominees willing to serve in positions under
> review      in the current NomCom cycle is not confidential.
> The NomCom should      publish a list of names of willing
> nominees to the community, in      order to obtain feedback
> from the community on these nominees.
>...
> Thoughts?

This (including all of the material I elided on the assumption
that people have read your original note) works for me.

I think there are at least three important considerations in the
Nomcom model and your text manages to be consistent with all of
them.  None of these are new, but perhaps it is useful to draw
them together.

(i) This is a recruitment and selection system, not an election.
If one is looking for analogies, better ones are found in job
applications and recruitment than in elections and votes.

(ii) The Nomcom must have whatever discretion is necessary to do
its job well, supplemented as needed by general guidance about
what the community expects.  Doing the job well has to be the
priority, not rule-following.  We have enough experience with
other IETF bodies to know that if it somehow abuses that
discretion, more rules will not help.  There is no value in
trying to either precisely defined rules or to discussions about
how discretion can be abused: a Nomcom that is focused in the
job and its responsibilities to the community won't be a problem
and one that intends to be a problem will ignore the rules, no
matter how precise.

(iii) The failure case for a Nomcom is appointing a bad nominee.
Whether that is a "no other choices" situation or a "we couldn't
find anyone else, even after seeking out individuals and asking
them to serve" one, or something else, the harm that can result
from an inappropriate appointment is far worse than asking a I*
body to deal with being short-handed and/or having to reorganize
itself.  Given the confidentiality rules, we will never know
whether the relevant Nomcoms who made bad choices felt that they
had no choice or just didn't have enough information.  But,
given that we demonstrably don't have a workable recall
procedure and that requests from within bodies for some members
to resign apparently rarely work (or are rarely attempted), all
of the selections a Nomcom makes need to be good ones.

     john

---

From: "Spencer Dawkins" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 12 May 2009 12:48:43 -0500

Replying to John's e-mail, but I read Thomas's as well...

I don't disagree with anything either of you said. My concern is that we're 
talking about Section 3, bullet 6, which defines confidentiality, and the 
text Thomas provided describes some fairly fundamental things about NomCom 
operation, including "actively recruiting additional nominees", that aren't 
part of RFC 3777 today.

I am wondering if this material needs to be part of a small revision to 
Section 3, bullet 6, or if it should go into (for example) an Informational 
statement of NomCom principles (such as the excellent "don't pick a nominee 
just because you can't find anyone else who's willing to serve"), that could 
be discussed and advanced separately.

Opinions are, of course welcomed.

Thanks,

Spencer

---

From: SM <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 12 May 2009 12:56:45 -0700

At 08:47 11-05-2009, Spencer Dawkins wrote:
>list of willing nominees in order to get community feedback". I'm 
>making that change.

In RFC 3777, we have the rules, interpretation of the rules, and 
discretion.  I'll comment on Thomas' message.

At 10:17 11-05-2009, Spencer Dawkins wrote:
>... RFC 3777 doesn't use the 2119 terminology boilerplate, but DOES 
>use (lowercased) "must", "should", and "may" throughout the current 
>text. I'm hoping that current practice in interpreting these terms 
>would be sufficient for a small 3777 revision, and I'm

Let's not get 2119 terminology into this.

>thinking I'd be overreaching to include an explanation of NomCom 
>process-as-guidance in a small 3777 revision.

Agreed.

>      order to obtain feedback from the community on these nominees.

I suggest something along the lines of:

   All deliberations and supporting information that relates to specific
   nominees, candidates, and confirmed candidates are confidential.
   The nominating committee retains the discretion to disclose the names
   of the nominees and the positions in which they are willing to serve to
   obtain feedback from the community on these nominees.

I used "names" instead of "list" so that NomCom can publish a partial 
list of nominees.  Although I did not suggest a time frame for 
publication, I gather that NomCom will need to have guidelines for 
that and it will also depend on the circumstances.  But it's up to 
NomCom to draw that up instead of having text in the draft.  I didn't 
mention "padding".  The discussion within the IETF Community might 
influence NomCom to stop that practice.

>      support/non-support for nominees IN ANY PUBLIC FORA (E.G.,

Do we really need to say that the feedback should be provided 
privately?  I have not seen any nominees publicly soliciting support 
or participants posting statements of support.  I gather that it's 
due to the "culture" of the IETF where it is understood that such 
behavior will be viewed as unacceptable.  Once we start saying the 
community "should not do", we'll have everything else as 
acceptable.  I don't think that's a good idea.

>      relatively late in the process, etc.

Having that as a discussion is fine.  It gives an idea of the intent 
for the change.  BTW, why is there emphasis on "willing"?  Nomcom 
requires feedback on all nominees, whether they are willing to serve 
or not.  If you use "willing" in the above, NomCom has less leeway 
for recruitment.

>regulate what goes on in private, however, as enforcement is tricky)

And how would it be enforced if it's done publicly?  I don't expect a 
answer to the question as it may be better to leave some things unsaid. :-)

At 10:48 12-05-2009, Spencer Dawkins wrote:
>I am wondering if this material needs to be part of a small revision 
>to Section 3, bullet 6, or if it should go into (for example) an 
>Informational statement of NomCom principles (such as the excellent 
>"don't pick a nominee just because you can't find anyone else who's 
>willing to serve"), that could be discussed and advanced separately.

I prefer to have any guidance in a separate Informational 
document.  Then it cannot be read as telling NomCom how it should do its work.

Regards,
-sm

---

From: Thomas Narten <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 17 May 2009 15:54:28 -0400

> operation, including "actively recruiting additional nominees", that aren't 

Right. Not written down, but IMO, consistent with what was originally
intended and what the practice has been.

That said, I'd hate to get caught up in "we shouldn't put in that text
for process reasons", when it it really helps clarify the guidance
being given.

My assumption is that at some point, we will need to revised 3777, and
we would at that pull in all relevant updates. We could at that point
spread out the text to all the appropriate sections of 3777bis.

> be discussed and advanced separately.

I do not like the idea of having "principles" and other important
context in a separate document that is informational. Principles are
most definitely normative, and IMO, we'd be better off generally if
the principles were written down clearly.

Thomas

---

From: Thomas Narten <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 17 May 2009 15:54:32 -0400

>    obtain feedback from the community on these nominees.

I think this text is better in some ways, but saying "retains the
discretion to disclose names" does not capture the WG intent, which is
clearly a "SHOULD publish the names".

If every other nomcom decides (based on the inclinations of each
year's particular nomcom) decide not to publish a list at all, I
suspect the community would not be happy.

> influence NomCom to stop that practice.

Generally, I do prefer that the operational details of what to post be
left to the nomcom.

> privately?

Yes. If there is no text saying discussions on the IETF list are not
appropriate, somebody will end up doing it, claiming it is perfectly
OK to do so.

> I have not seen any nominees publicly soliciting support 
> or participants posting statements of support.

In the past we viewed the list of nominees to be confidential and
solicting support would have been frowned upon. By loosening up the
rules, we would presumably also be loosening up the expectations in
other areas to.

> I gather that it's due to the "culture" of the IETF where it is
> understood that such behavior will be viewed as unacceptable.  Once
> we start saying the community "should not do", we'll have everything
> else as acceptable.  I don't think that's a good idea.

You seem to be saying that if we say in a document "you should not do
X", that somehow implies anything "not X" implicitely becomes
allowed. I don't see how that follows. Moreover, the implications of
such reasoning would surely complicate all our documents, that weren't
written with such an assumption

> for the change.  BTW, why is there emphasis on "willing"?

"Willing" comes from earlier text, and indicates the person is
"willing to serve", and by implication, is not a ringer.

> Nomcom requires feedback on all nominees, whether they are willing
> to serve or not.  If you use "willing" in the above, NomCom has less
> leeway for recruitment.

Seems like the nomcom (and the community) should not spend much time
on nominees that are not willing to serve...

> answer to the question as it may be better to leave some things

Public shaming. If it does, I'd expect the community to say "stop
doing this" and point to the document for justification.

> I prefer to have any guidance in a separate Informational document.
> Then it cannot be read as telling NomCom how it should do its work.

As said in another post, the guidance we give should be
normative. Otherwise, why bother giving it?

Thomas

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 17 May 2009 16:43:23 -0400

--On Sunday, May 17, 2009 15:54 -0400 Thomas Narten
<[email-masked]> wrote:

>>    All deliberations and supporting information that relates
>>    to specific nominees, candidates, and confirmed candidates
>>    are confidential. The nominating committee retains the
>>    discretion to disclose the names of the nominees and the
>>    positions in which they are willing to serve to obtain
>>    feedback from the community on these nominees.
> 
> I think this text is better in some ways, but saying "retains
> the discretion to disclose names" does not capture the WG
> intent, which is clearly a "SHOULD publish the names".

Which "WG intent" did you have in mind here?  I don't seem to
see any active WG, nor a consensus and published charter, nor...

That said, I believe that the general sense of things is to make
the default to publish but to give the Nomcom wide discretion to
avoid publishing some or all names and to do so without having
to explain its reasons to the community (since doing so would
almost certainly disclose confidential candidate or comparative
information).   I still fear that default will make things worse
and narrow the choice of possible nominees, but I do think it is
the trend of the discussions.

> Yes. If there is no text saying discussions on the IETF list
> are not appropriate, somebody will end up doing it, claiming
> it is perfectly OK to do so.

Sadly, I agree.
 
> "willing to serve", and by implication, is not a ringer.

While I agree with the "not a ringer" part, I am not sure that
what you are reading as "willing to serve" really means anything
more than "willing to have name considered".   Volunteering to
have one's name considered is rather different from guaranteeing
that, if one is selected, one will serve (and be able to serve).
Over the years, different Nomcoms have given possible nominees
different advice about how certain they need to be about
availability and willingness to serve.  And, of course, at least
some Nomcoms have asked people permission before using their
names as ringers.  So the line might be a little more vague than
the discussion above and earlier would imply (and, incidentally,
in an unstable market environment, the longer we stretch the
Nomcom process out, the harder it will become to make those
distinctions).

>> Nomcom requires feedback on all nominees, whether they are
>> willing to serve or not.  If you use "willing" in the above,
>> NomCom has less leeway for recruitment.
> 
> Seems like the nomcom (and the community) should not spend
> much time on nominees that are not willing to serve...

How about a nominee who would be willing to serve given
resources (which might be very uncertain) and under some set of
conditions that might or might not be made explicit to the
Nomcom?  Again, while I appreciate the distinction you are
making, I don't see the boundary as being nearly as clear as
"willing" versus "not willing".  

Let me try an example to illustrate that this is not just
theoretical.   Suppose someone gave the IASA a large grant whose
purpose was to guarantee travel and related expense costs for
any person selected to the IESG or IAB who did not have employer
support for those activities.  Suppose the IAOC decided to
accept that grant (while I hope they would extensively consult
the community before doing so, I don't believe their recent
interpretations of BCP 101 would require them to do that).  I
suggest that decision would immediately and dramatically change
the "willing to serve" equation.   Now, if someone were "willing
to serve" iff such a miracle occurred, how much do you think he
or she should be considered?
 
> normative. Otherwise, why bother giving it?

Because we can reasonably expect the Nomcom to take advice and
guidance from the community.  If they don't or won't, we have
bigger problems than what a document says, whether it is
formally 
"normative" or not.   I fear, instead, that having too many
formally normative statements around will either overconstrain
the Nomcom's ability to apply discretion or become an avenue for
appeals against Nomcom procedures and decisions -- appeals that
could cause the IETF public embarrassment and entangle us for a
very long time.    Remember that, although some of us have
trouble figuring out why, some individuals or their companies
really _want_ those positions.

    john

---

From: SM <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 17 May 2009 23:19:10 -0700

Hi Thomas,
>clearly a "SHOULD publish the names".

RFC 3777 sets the rules that apply to the process.  It does not use 
key words to indicate requirement levels.  The WG is asking for 
change which is viewed as minimal without looking at the bigger 
picture.  Let's review the question.  Should the names be 
published?  After all, it's an open secret as it is sent to all WG 
chairs.  Most people would answer yes to that question.

>suspect the community would not be happy.

NomCom seeks to be representative of the community (this note is for 
some of the people who have been posting on this thread.  I could not 
come up with a better wording to explain it).  If the intent of the 
IETF community is to have the names published and NomCom does not 
have that intent, then there is a disconnect somewhere.  NomCom is 
not there to make the community happy.  It is there to judge the 
technical, people and process management skills of the nominee.

>appropriate, somebody will end up doing it, claiming it is perfectly

The community should use its powers of persuasion so that the 
discussions do not take place on the IETF list. :-)

>rules, we would presumably also be loosening up the expectations in

NomCom can shape the expectations when it solicits feedback.

>written with such an assumption

It's a cultural thing.  In some cultures, everything not expressly 
allowed is forbidden.  In others, everything not expressly forbidden 
is allowed.  How does that is pertinent to this discussion?  Our 
documents generally don't try to regulate social behavior.  This one 
does.  Every now and then I come across a (non-IETF) discussion about 
requirement levels in a RFC and interpretation of the text.  The 
arguments are at odds with the assumptions of the author of the 
document.  From a social perspective, that can also happen in the 
IETF of today as it is not cohesive due to its size and the 
involvement of participants.

>"willing to serve", and by implication, is not a ringer.

John commented on this.

>on nominees that are not willing to serve...

Rectification,  it's the community that does not want to waste its 
time on ringers;  NomCom already has access to the willing list. :-)

>doing this" and point to the document for justification.

This is a case where the community could explain why it is a "bad 
idea" instead of pointing to some requirement in a document for 
justification.  You could oppose my suggestion by pointing to one of 
the fundamentals of the IETF process. :-)

>normative. Otherwise, why bother giving it?

You can coerce people with a stick.  Or you can appeal to their 
better judgement.  In the IETF, the latter is like herding cats.

Regards,
-sm

---

From: Thomas Narten <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 18 May 2009 08:53:08 -0400

> see any active WG, nor a consensus and published charter, nor...

Sorry, loose language. There is no WG, obviously. But the various hums
and discussions indicate to me that the community wants the list of
nominees published. As in "should be published" rather than "has the
discretion to publish".

Agreed.

Agreed.

> "willing" versus "not willing".

OK.  Then perhaps the wording needs to be more explicit about which
names should be published and which not. At a minimum, we should say
"no ringers". But if the nomcom is required to get permission from the
nominee before publishing their name, I suspect we won't be satisfying
what I assume many in the community are calling for.

> really _want_ those positions.

While I agree at one level, I also have the opposite concern. Namely,
that some folk will argue since the guidance text is informational, it
is not normative and hence can be ignored.

Seems we can't win either way. :-(

And again, I agree that we should not overconstrain the nomcom through
too many rules. What I want to see though is a clear articulation of
the principles, so that they can be applied to whatever situation the
nomcom finds itself in. Those principles need to be normative, or by
defintion some will argue they don't *really* apply.

Thomas

---

From: "Joel M. Halpern" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 18 May 2009 10:10:57 -0400

You note below that the wording is not precise.
I think it is important because the question of what the nomcom "is" can 
cause confusion and dissension.

The nomcom selection process is designed to be "inclusive".  It can not 
be "representative", since there are a lot more than 10 variations in 
the community.
The nomcom is charged with acting in the best interest of the community, 
not with "representing" the community.
The nomcom acts on behalf of the community, with understanding of the 
desires of the community.  But I think injecting the word "represent" is 
asking for confusion.

Yours,
Joel M. Halpern

SM wrote:
...
> come up with a better wording to explain it).  If the intent of the IETF 
> community is to have the names published and NomCom does not have that 
> intent, then there is a disconnect somewhere.  NomCom is not there to 
> make the community happy.  It is there to judge the technical, people 
> and process management skills of the nominee.
...

---

From: "Spencer Dawkins" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 18 May 2009 10:27:42 -0500

Hi, John,

> Nomcom process out, the harder it will become to make those

I believe that s/willing/willing to be considered/g is a useful distinction. 
I'll include this in the next draft revision.

The point of the previous text was "do NOT include the people who have 
already told you 'no way' ...". The wording I chose was broader than that. 
Sorry, and thanks for the comment.

Spencer

---

From: Robert Elz <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 18 May 2009 23:11:13 +0700

Date:        Sun, 17 May 2009 23:19:10 -0700
    From:        SM <[email-masked]>
    Message-ID:  <[email-masked]>

  | Should the names be published?
  | After all, it's an open secret as it is sent to all WG chairs.

This is where I disagree with (what has been, I believe, recently at
least) the current process - the list shouldn't have ever been sent to
the WG chairs (not as such).   Or to anyone else.

If that wasn't done, there wouldn't be nearly as much of an "open secret"
and that argument for publishing the list would not exist - that is, the
supporters of that position wouldn't be able to just say "it happens
anyway, let's recognise that and formalise it" but would instead need
to produce arguments as to why things would work better this way.

Before responding (anyone) - please rest assured, my aim is not to
deprive the nomcom of the opportunity of obtaining input, I know the
nomcom needs to seek advice, as given the way the nomcom is selected
there's no way to expect that the nomcom members will have any particular
knowledge of any of the nominees, let alone all of them.

The way I'd like things to work is ...

Everything up through the call for nominations just like happens now (or
no changes relevant to this discussion) - with the knowledge that the call
never actually ends.

Nomcom contacts all names put forward with its questionnaire, with the
most important question being the willingness to serve ... I would never
ask the nominee why they should be selected though, but rather just
concentrate on facts (what they've been doing in the IETF community, and
experience in other bodies, etc.)   But that's not important.

Armed with the initial list of nominees, the nomcom examines each one,
and for each, produces a list of three or four (or so) names of IETF people
who ought to be aware of the nominees work - WG chairs, other draft authors in
the same WG, ... ideally keeping those lists as disjoint as possible
(ie: pick different people for each nominee, as much as possible.)

Those lists are coalesced, so there's a list of people to contact, and
for each, a list of the nominees that person is to be asked about (ideally
just one name in most cases, two or three perhaps in a few).

Those people (probably a hundred or so of them max) then get asked if they're
willing to be sent confidential nomcom info, and will keep it confidential,
and send in opinions of nominees.   Where they reply in the affirmative,
they're sent the list that was generated for them and asked for comments.

When the nomcom gets the replies, they should be able to be characterised
into one of 4 general groups - "good", "indifferent", "bad" and "don't know".
The occasional "don't know" gets ignored - but many of those replies for
a nominee doesn't mean the nomcom needs to ask more people, it means the
nominee is not well known, which almost certainly means is not yet ready
for a leadership position (at the nomcom appointment level anyway).

Aside from those, all good or a mixture of good/indifferent replies
probably means the nomcom is worth considering (one would hope the replies
will be more that one word, to give the nomcom a better idea why the
response is the way it is.)   All bad, or indifferent/bad most likely
implies the nominee should be dropped.   All indifferent would move the
nominee to "only if there's no other choice".   A mixture of bad/good
(with or without indifferent as well) probably means that the nominee
might be divisive, and probably isn't a good choice.

Only where the nomcom really finds itself list because of the responses
it receives should it really need to consult more than those initial
4 or so referees - the aim is not to discover the IETF's opinion, but
to educate the nomcom as to the qualities of each nominee - too much
input generally just means greater levels of uncertainty.

Finally, the nomcom should NEVER ask a referee (by which I mean someone
the nomcom has selected to ask questions of) to rank nominees, or
"which of A B C would make the better X?" or anything like that - that's
the nomcom's job to evaluate, not the referee's.  The referee should
just be asked to comment upon a particular nominees's ability to do the
job, in isolation of all other possible nominees.

By all means ask for the names of other people the referee thinks could
do the job better - that's part of the continuous process of enlarging
the nominee pool.  If the referee suggests people who were already
nominees (ideally, without that being known by the referee), then the
committee has gained free information.  If some new name is suggested,
that should be treated just like any other nomination and acceptance of
that person sought, etc.

  | >If every other nomcom decides (based on the inclinations of each
  | >year's particular nomcom) decide not to publish a list at all, I
  | >suspect the community would not be happy.

I was earlier going to reply to Thomas directly, on this point, but
since I'm here, and you quoted this ...   As I understand it, all this
arose because the nomcom chair (past nomcom chair) thought it would be
easier for the nomcom if the names could be published - prior to that
I wasn't aware of any great community demand for any change in this area.

That is, we're not really responding to the community's desire for
publication of names, but seeking to discover if the nomcom process can
be made better, where this is one potential change.

I don't see (at all) that the community would not be happy, should some
nomcom decide it had no need to publish nominee names, and so did not.
The community have no need to know who the nominees are, there's no
election or popularity contest occurring - there's no need for feedback from
the community in general, that's not how the nomcom process should be
working.

  | NomCom seeks to be representative of the community (this note is for 
  | some of the people who have been posting on this thread.  I could not 
  | come up with a better wording to explain it).

I agree with Joel's response to this - selection of the nomcom members
is done in a way that it should result in a committee that is roughly
representative (in the sense of being a good cross section of the
community ... for now, the IETF meeting attending part of the community
anyway) but beyond that there's nothing at all representative about the
process.

  | NomCom is 
  | not there to make the community happy.  It is there to judge the 
  | technical, people and process management skills of the nominee.

This I absolutely agree with, in the sense you intended it I believe.
If the nomcom do a good job, it is likely the community will be
happy with the results, but producing the best available candidates
is the aim, not the ones that most please the community.

  | It's a cultural thing.  In some cultures, everything not expressly 
  | allowed is forbidden.  In others, everything not expressly forbidden 
  | is allowed.

In this case, I think it may be something in between - if a doc says
nothing at all, then neither forbidden nor allowed is necessarily
implied - but once a doc starts to set out what is allowed, or what
is not allowed, there is a very strong temptation (so strong, it is
a principle of legal interpretation, at least in English law) that
whatever is written is (by default) the totality of what was intended.
That is, the assumption is made that if you have listed 5 allowable
activities, then nothing else is allowable, or it would have been listed
with the "good 5" - or if you have listed some prohibited activities,
then nothing else, except what is listed, is prohibited.   This is all
possible to avoid, but doing so isn't always as easy as it might seem.

  | >Seems like the nomcom (and the community) should not spend much time
  | >on nominees that are not willing to serve...
  | 
  | Rectification,  it's the community that does not want to waste its 
  | time on ringers;  NomCom already has access to the willing list. :-)

Unfortunately, there's no way to really know.   I doubt it has been
much of a problem so far, but there's no way to avoid ringers in this
sense - the nomcom doesn't really have access to the willing list,
just the list of people who said they'd be willing.   Which of those
would really serve if selected isn't known until later (and the
confidential nature of the process means that outside the nomcom, and
perhaps the confirming body, no-one else ever knows).

That is, if some segment of the community decided that a bunch of
ringers would for some weird reason be a good idea, they could all
just nominate each other, and say they're willing when first asked,
without having any real intention to serve.

There's no way I know of, to prevent this (we can't force people to
serve when selected, even if they earlier said they would - circumstances
change).

So, it is absurd to prohibit ringers, that can't be done.   What should
be being made clear to the nomcom is that it is not required to add ringers
in order to meet some perceived confidentially requirement.  If the
nomcom operated as I outlined above, the whole issue would never arise.
The whole concept of ringers appeared because nomcom has grown a tendancy
to want to get as much input on every nominee from as many people as possible,
which has meant disclosing the entire list of nominees (for at least a
particular position) to a comparatively large set of people (so ringers
were invented to try and keep the real list secret).   IMO, that's
not the right way to operate - stop it, stop seeking input from everyone
about everyone, and the whole problem goes away (as does any rational need to
publish any list of nominees - the practical implications of which,
including just when it happens, how often it happens, when names are
added or removed from the published list, etc, haven't even begun to be
considered.)

kre

---

From: "Joel M. Halpern" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 18 May 2009 12:34:11 -0400

I believe that the process Robert suggests, while much better than no 
input, would not give the nomcom the input it desires.

While I have comments on other aspects below a portion of Robert's note, 
I am responding to the primary suggestion here.

If the nomcom were to select a small number of people to provide input 
on each nominee, there would be several likely failure modes.
For areas where the nomcom was light on expertise, the nomcom would have 
to rely on the known leadership.  THe goal is to get broader input than 
just from the leadership.
For many of our most active people, there are communities of people who 
react differently to them.  It is important to hear from those folks, so 
as to know there is an issue.  (Evaluating that in more detail is the 
nomcom's job, and not by counting members of each "constituency.")  But 
it is quite easy if you pick a few people to miss such facts
Even for folks who are not as controversial, it is often useful to get 
input from outside of their natural interaction group.  One finds out 
things about folks from how they work with other folks.  But often the 
nomcom is in no position to know who to ask.  (In many ways one of the 
most interesting aspects of any nominee for the IAB or IESG is how they 
work with other areas or activities outside of their center of 
competence and activity.)

Letting the community see the list allows community members who have 
information know that it may be useful to the nomcom.  Hiding the list 
does not seem to achieve anything of value to the nomcom, has 
significant drawbacks for the community, and has, as far as I can tell, 
only narrow advantages even for the community.

....

> that should be treated just like any other nomination and acceptance of
---------
> I wasn't aware of any great community demand for any change in this area.

Allow me to slightly clarify.
I, and quite a few other people, have been asking for this change for 
years.  I was a vocal advocate for this change when I was participating 
in the actual working group many years ago.  What struck me as nomcom 
chair was that it was a more important change than I had thought.  Many 
members of this years committee pushed me very hard to just use a fully 
disclosed list.  Also note that this item was on the list reported by 
the "previous chairs" before I was ever even appointed chair.  While I 
can not claim this change represents the rough consensus of the 
community, it has been asked for by a wide range of people, including 
general IETF members, leaders, nomcom members and leaders, ...  This was 
not about "ease".  While the committee members did a lot of work, and I 
commend them for it, my pushing this is not to reduce the work.  It is 
to create a modification that is both more effective, in giving the 
input that is needed, and more honest, in not pretending to provide 
confidentiality that it does not provide.

It should be noted that even when the disclosure list was a lot smaller 
than it is now, the feedback disclosure system leaked.  So asking a 
hundred people to keep something confidential is not likely to work, 
even if I liked the idea.

Yours,
Joel M. Halpern

---

From: Bernie Hoeneisen <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 18 May 2009 19:05:16 +0200 (CEST)

I fully agree with Joel.

cheers,
  Bernie

On Mon, 18 May 2009, Joel M. Halpern wrote:

> I believe that the process Robert suggests, while much better than no input, 
> would not give the nomcom the input it desires.
>
> While I have comments on other aspects below a portion of Robert's note, I am 
> responding to the primary suggestion here.
>
> If the nomcom were to select a small number of people to provide input on 
> each nominee, there would be several likely failure modes.
> For areas where the nomcom was light on expertise, the nomcom would have to 
> rely on the known leadership.  THe goal is to get broader input than just 
> from the leadership.
> For many of our most active people, there are communities of people who react 
> differently to them.  It is important to hear from those folks, so as to know 
> there is an issue.  (Evaluating that in more detail is the nomcom's job, and 
> not by counting members of each "constituency.")  But it is quite easy if you 
> pick a few people to miss such facts
> Even for folks who are not as controversial, it is often useful to get input 
> from outside of their natural interaction group.  One finds out things about 
> folks from how they work with other folks.  But often the nomcom is in no 
> position to know who to ask.  (In many ways one of the most interesting 
> aspects of any nominee for the IAB or IESG is how they work with other areas 
> or activities outside of their center of competence and activity.)
>
> information know that it may be useful to the nomcom.  Hiding the list does 
> not seem to achieve anything of value to the nomcom, has significant 
> drawbacks for the community, and has, as far as I can tell, only narrow 
> advantages even for the community.
>
> ....
>
> Robert Elz wrote:
> I, and quite a few other people, have been asking for this change for years. 
> I was a vocal advocate for this change when I was participating in the actual 
> working group many years ago.  What struck me as nomcom chair was that it was 
> a more important change than I had thought.  Many members of this years 
> committee pushed me very hard to just use a fully disclosed list.  Also note 
> that this item was on the list reported by the "previous chairs" before I was 
> ever even appointed chair.  While I can not claim this change represents the 
> rough consensus of the community, it has been asked for by a wide range of 
> people, including general IETF members, leaders, nomcom members and leaders, 
> ...  This was not about "ease".  While the committee members did a lot of 
> work, and I commend them for it, my pushing this is not to reduce the work. 
> It is to create a modification that is both more effective, in giving the 
> It should be noted that even when the disclosure list was a lot smaller than 
> it is now, the feedback disclosure system leaked.  So asking a hundred people 
> to keep something confidential is not likely to work, even if I liked the 
> idea.
>
> Yours,
> Joel M. Halpern

---

From: Thomas Narten <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 19 May 2009 11:58:24 -0400

> be made better, where this is one potential change.

Well, this is a pretty important point. My sense is that we've had
folk calling for publishing the list for quite some time now. Not just
from former nomcom people. If this were not the case, I don't think
we'd be having this discussion now. And the plenary poll on this point
confirmed more support for publishing a list than not.

That said, I personally remain opposed to publishing a list. My
participation on this topic has been more about getting the wording
right, than support for the goal.

My concern is that publishing a list will leave the nomcom with fewer
choices than it has today. There are people who simply will not be
willing to be considered, if their names are published as
requirement. This is not because such folk do not have thick skin, but
because having it known that one is opposing an incumbant can
complicate their relationship with the incumband and/or others. It
will be viewed, after all, as a sort of "no confidence" vote
w.r.t. the incumbant.

IETF participants can have fairly complex relationships with other
IETF participants, and having ones names published, can complicate
those relationships.

For example, if nominee X works for the same employer as an incumbant,
agreeing to be considered will certainly complicate the relationship
between the two. Moreover, the two employees may well work closely
together internally, their professional careers may overlap (one may
be a manager for the other, be a necessary reference for promotions,
etc.) It may also be viewed negatively (within the company) for one
employee to be opposing another publically. Bottom line: it may be a
career-complicating, if not limiting, move for someone to publically
oppose an incumbant, especially if they are not chosen by the
nomcom. Many folk will think twice before doing this.

There are many varients to the above theme involving folk working at
different companies. Vendor X may be partnering with Vendor Y, and
having someone from vendor X publically oppose an incumbent from
partner Y could cause problems or complicate the business
relationship.

Or, an individual may be worried about how they (and their documents)
will be treated going forward by the incumbant, if the incumbant is
reappointed.

The overall point is that someone may well be willing to be
considered, but not if this is publically known unless they are
chosen. The community may well find itself with fewer willing nominees
as a result of having published lists, which is presumably not an
intended outcome.

Thomas

---

From: "Joel M. Halpern" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 19 May 2009 12:12:03 -0400

The aspect of name publication Thomas raises below is important, but is 
one where we come to different conclusions.
(Comments after the excerpt from his text.)

Thomas Narten wrote:
...
> will be viewed, after all, as a sort of "no confidence" vote

While you raises several interesting perspectives (retained below), I 
think that the right way to address this is to change the view.
I know of several ADs who explicitly told their advisory boards and 
chairs "if you are at all willing to serve, please volunteer."  They 
made it quite clear that there would be no objection or consequence for 
volunteering.

I would recommend to a nomcom (if I were not serving on it) that any AD 
who I learned was likely to take volunteers badly should be seriously 
considered for replacement, no matter how good a job they are doing. 
That is not the behavior we want.

Similarly, we need to make it clear to the companies supporting folks 
that there are many factors cosnidered by the nomcom and that they 
should not consider rejection of an incumbent as a job negative.  This 
is complex because companies often do value those roles, and feel 
deprived when they are removed.  And I have heard of cases where such 
removals made life harder on people.  But we need the nominees.  And 
note that if the nominees are secret, but are going to do the nomcom 
much good, then any of the cases you outline below may happen anyway 
when the alternate person is selected.

So, while I sympathize with some of the concerns, I think publication of 
nominees names is the right model.  We need to better describe the 
process / choice model so that folks understand and believe that it is 
not a negative to be turned down.  (And yes, I know that perspective 
from first hand experience as well.)

Yours,
Joel M. Halpern

---

From: "Spencer Dawkins" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 19 May 2009 11:20:26 -0500

Without reference to the conclusions being discussed in this thread, it's 
worth noting that my current working text for what gets added to 3777 begins 
with

  <t>The list of nominees willing to be considered for positions under 
review
   in the current NomCom cycle is not confidential.
   The NomCom may publish a list of names of nominees who are willing to be 
considered
   for positions under review to the community,
   in order to obtain feedback from the community on these nominees.

The text no longer requires NomCom to publish a list (if NomCom doesn't need 
feedback on the nominees under consideration), and no longer requires 
publication of a complete list (if NomCom doesn't need feedback on a 
complete list).

Speaking for myself ... I've actually been listening to the meta-discussion 
about having too many rules that might prevent a NomCom from doing the right 
thing, so I'm OK with just explicitly giving NomCom the ability to ask for 
feedback if they need it, without the current shadow-puppet exercise 
currently practiced.

Thanks,

Spencer

> I know of several ADs who explicitly told their advisory boards and chairs 
> "if you are at all willing to serve, please volunteer."  They made it 
> quite clear that there would be no objection or consequence for 
> volunteering.
>
> considered for replacement, no matter how good a job they are doing. That 
> is not the behavior we want.
>
> Similarly, we need to make it clear to the companies supporting folks that 
> there are many factors cosnidered by the nomcom and that they should not 
> consider rejection of an incumbent as a job negative.  This is complex 
> because companies often do value those roles, and feel deprived when they 
> are removed.  And I have heard of cases where such removals made life 
> harder on people.  But we need the nominees.  And note that if the 
> nominees are secret, but are going to do the nomcom much good, then any of 
> the cases you outline below may happen anyway when the alternate person is 
> selected.
>
> nominees names is the right model.  We need to better describe the process 
> / choice model so that folks understand and believe that it is not a 
> negative to be turned down.  (And yes, I know that perspective from first 
> hand experience as well.)
>
> Yours,
> Joel M. Halpern
>
>>

---

From: Stewart Bryant <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 20 May 2009 07:31:49 +0100

Thomas
> will be viewed, after all, as a sort of "no confidence" vote

In practice, as soon as the Nomcom asks for feedback, one way of 
another, the
incumbent gets to find out  who the candidate list. Therefore your 
concern is one
that applies to the current system.

Stewart

---

From: SM <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 27 May 2009 08:00:14 -0700

>to produce arguments as to why things would work better this way.

That's an interesting line of argument.  I like what you said in the 
last sentence.

>anyway) but beyond that there's nothing at all representative about the

I appreciate Joel correcting me on this.

At the end of the day, we need to chose some people (the committee) 
to do the selection.  For such a choice (the way it is done) to gain 
wide acceptance, it has to be perceived as inclusive.  Joel's and 
your responses sums up what I wanted to convey.

Agreed.

Regards,
-sm