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

From: [email-masked] (Scott O. Bradner)
Date: Sun, 10 May 2009 10:39:21 -0400 (EDT)

John sed:
> the implied ability of the Nomcom to decide to not fill some positions

the one time I know that a nomcom did that the IESG tolld them that 
was not acceptable & that they should go fill the seats they
had been told to fill

Scott

---

From: "Joel M. Halpern" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 10 May 2009 11:07:27 -0400

I strongly suspect that the problem here (of not getting all slates 
filled) is not a rules problem.

There is no question that the nomcom should fill the positions it is 
tasked to fill.  That is what it is chartered and selected to do.
Equally, if there is a real problem, then the nomcom and the confirming 
body need to communicate about the problem,a dn resolve it.  Throwing 
ultimatums (ultimata?) over the fence at each other is not effective, 
although it has been publicly reported as occuring several times.

Yes, in the case of a gap the confirming body should be asking "did you 
really work as hard as you possibly could to deal with this?"  And they 
are probably entitled to ask for more specifics as to what the problem 
really is.

Things will certainly get complicated if the liaison from that body 
thinks that the nomcom is actually being lazy or stubborn, rather than 
really working.  But at that point there are several parties who can get 
involved in the discussion.  (First round, the chair and past chair. 
Second round?  The whole committee.)

It is also important the the nomcom be very aware that they are 
responsible for filling all the slots.  They should not easily say 
"well, we can't do this one now, so we will take our time and get it 
done after the next meeting, so that we do a really good job."  The 
deadlines and requirements are there to give the nomcom chair a tool to 
help get the committee to actually finish the work.  (Yes, it matters, 
and yes having those tools is helpful.)  Like most engineering, the 
nomcom job can easily run into the best being the enemy of the good.
(I would hesitate to use the word "optimal" in describing any aspect of 
this task for that exact reason.)

One reason that I would not want to create a strict rule on filling all 
seats is that it encourages the nomcom to game the system instead of 
solving the problem.  (People often react that way to rules :-) After 
all, filling resignations operates on a different schedule.

Yours,
Joel M. Halpern

PS: Note that for both IAB and IESG confirmation, it is quite reasonable 
in my opinion for the confirming body to want a whole slate for 
confirmation.  Both bodies have significant interaction and skill 
coverage issues.  Which the confirming body is supposed to look at.

Scott O. Bradner wrote:
> _______________________________________________
> ietf-nomcom mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-nomcom
>

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 10 May 2009 14:13:02 -0400

--On Sunday, May 10, 2009 11:07 AM -0400 "Joel M. Halpern" 
<[email-masked]> wrote:

> I strongly suspect that the problem here (of not getting all
> slates filled) is not a rules problem.
>
> There is no question that the nomcom should fill the positions
> it is tasked to fill.  That is what it is chartered and
> selected to do.
> Equally, if there is a real problem, then the nomcom and the
> confirming body need to communicate about the problem,a dn
> resolve it.  Throwing ultimatums (ultimata?) over the fence at
> each other is not effective, although it has been publicly
> reported as occuring several times.
>...

Agreed.  However, while I hope it will occur rarely, if ever, I 
believe that we need to leave the Nomcom the room to say "we 
have been duly diligent but have concluded that there is no 
satisfactory person to fill this slot".   That is very different 
from the "lazy Nomcom" hypothesis mentioned elsewhere in your 
note or even a "we need more time for this position" one, both 
of which I think can and should be sorted out in other ways.

While I agree that confirming bodies should ask hard questions 
if a Nomcom ever declines to fill a slot, I do not believe that 
a confirming body has the right to say "we won't start the 
confirmation process until all slots are filled".  Note that 
"not all slots are filled" is different from "not a complete 
slate" -- if the Nomcom makes an affirmative decision to not 
fill a slot, then the "slate" is as full as it is going to get 
and I don't believe that Nomcom has any obligation to come back 
and "fill the vacancy" unless new information or new possible 
nominees come forward (or are brought forward).

So that this doesn't sound too much like an abstract, 
hypothetical, and nearly impossible situation, let me explain 
the scenario I'm concerned about as an example (there may be 
others).  Over the years, IESG and IAB positions have steadily 
grown in the amount of work and time commitment expected of 
those who hold them.  The two Chairs have, I believe, become 
full-time roles and (at least) some of the AD positions are 
rapidly moving up on them.

Asking an organization to donate someone to the IETF full-time 
for two to four years minimum while continuing to pay full 
salary and benefits and to support the sometimes-extensive 
travel and other expenses associated with those positions is a 
huge requirement and commitment -- especially from organizations 
who will not make commitments longer than 30 - 60 days to 
employees and managers with link product (i.e., making a direct 
contribution to a positive bottom line) responsibilities.  If 
the economic trends continue and organizations respond by 
becoming conservative about activities that do not contribute 
directly to profitability, the Nomcom will sooner or later be 
faced with either no nominees for a given position (even after 
doing their own search) or with no one whom they believe could 
do the job well.  I get very anxious if the Nomcom has only one 
plausible candidate for a role but how to handle that is up to 
them.

At that point, I believe it is in the best interests of the 
community for the Nomcom to say "cannot fill this role as 
specified" rather than offering a substandard and dubious 
candidate in the hope that he or she will work out.   The 
relevant body would then either need to operate short-handed, 
possibly scaling back on its expectations of what it can 
reasonably hope to accomplish, or would have to think about how 
to reorganize and define itself to be more consistent with the 
realities of the situation and available personnel.  Those would 
not necessarily be bad outcomes, IMO.

     john

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 10 May 2009 14:31:52 -0400

--On Sunday, May 10, 2009 10:39 AM -0400 "Scott O. Bradner" 
<[email-masked]> wrote:

> the one time I know that a nomcom did that the IESG tolld them
> that  was not acceptable & that they should go fill the seats
> they had been told to fill

I hope that, in that situation, the Nomcom got back to work and 
found a truly stellar candidate who served effectively for one 
or more terms.  However, I'd be very concerned if the result was 
a candidate whom the Nomcom selected because they had no better 
choices in spite of that candidate being either substandard in 
qualifications or concerns that he or she would not work well 
within the IESG.

   john

---

From: [email-masked] (Scott O. Bradner)
Date: Sun, 10 May 2009 14:35:08 -0400 (EDT)

> or more terms. 

without going into the details, I'd say that was the result

Scott