Subject: [ietf-nomcom] Changing the candidate selection model

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 27 May 2009 09:27:57 -0400

Hi.

During the plenary in San Francisco, several people made the
point that it is probably time to think carefully about the
mechanisms of the Nomcom model, not just to try to do the small
incremental tuning discussed recently on this list.  

Spencer and I have been kicking around an idea for some years
that addresses one of those key issues: the relationship between
nominees would are incumbents in a given role and those who
would be new to it.   Those differences are particularly
important because of the large number of incumbents Nomcoms end
up returning to their positions and because issues about
"running against" an incumbent are at the root of several of the
objections to (or likely need for exceptions from) an open list
of nominees.

I've just queued a document,
draft-klensin-nomcom-incumbents-first-00.txt, for posting that
addresses that issue by proposing a significant change to Nomcom
operations.  We look forward to your comments.

     john

---

From: "Joel M. Halpern" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 27 May 2009 10:39:02 -0400

Having read the draft, it seems to me that this is a bad idea.

Firstly, I am not sure what problem it solves.  There is apparently some 
concern about whether the nomcom is returning too many or too few 
incumbents.  It seems likely to me that real world variation means that 
there is no right number.  At a guess, given what the community has 
said, I would personnaly expect to see about half returned each time. 
And if I look at the numbers in the table, 49/95 have been returned. 
Whatever problems there may be in this dimension, they seem to be 
self-correcting and self-balancing.

At the same time, this proposal seems to actually make it harder for the 
nomcom to do a good job.  The goal is to appoint the best available 
person to the job.
Choosing to re-appoint or not re-appoint an incumbent without comparison 
with considering who else may be available and qualified is not, it 
seems to me, able to meet that goal.

It seems to me that the general notion of how many incumbents ought to 
be returned in any given cycle depends heavily on how many good 
alternatives there are. So I would hate to require the committee to make 
that decision without having that information.

More important than the abstract failure mode, there are multiple 
specific failure modes that would do a disservice to the community and 
the nomcom.  If the nomcom has many qualified incumbents, if doing a 
stand-alone evaluation it may choose to return rather more incumbents 
than it would if it knew that some of those seats had good nominees 
available.  Similarly, if the nomcom wishes to choose among the 
incumbents, because it feels that the good ones would still represent 
returning too many, the nomcom really needs to know who else is 
available.  Conversely, it is quite possible that the nomcom would, in a 
stand-alone evaluation, decide that some incumbent was not quite as good 
as they would like, and choose not to appoint him. Only to discover that 
said incumbent is significantly better than any of the nominees they 
evaluate.

The document seems to suggest that the answer to some of these issues is 
to assume that there are always enough good nominees, and that if there 
are not, maybe the seat should go unfilled.  This is sufficiently far 
from my understanding of the realities that it seems a dangerous assumption.

There is another dimension in which I have serious concerns with this 
proposal.  One of the things the nomcom evaluates, for all bodies, is 
the balance of members.  That balance may, in different years, be 
reflective of different aspects of skills, knowledge, contacts, etc... 
  But That kind of balancing has been seen as important in may cases. 
Pre-selecting which incumbents will remain, and which will not, means 
that such balancing can not be used as part of the selection.
This seems an extremely difficult and counter-productive restriction to 
place on the nomcom.

Also, it is my opinion that this would significantly increase the time 
for the selection process.  The selection process is not linear.  As 
such, while the number of seats to be filled has some effect on the 
time, it is not a significant factor.  (Issues of collecting input, and 
whether particular choices are easy or hard, make more difference.) 
While this work could possibly be overlapped with some portion of the 
nomination selection, it clearly would need to be completed, confirmed, 
and announced before nominations were considered usable, since 
nominations would clearly need these results if this process were to 
take place.  As such, I believe it would add several months to the process.

It is also the case that the differences in kinds of seats makes some 
difference.  Even if it were somehow concluded that this made sense for 
the IESG, I can not see why one would apply it to the IAB.  In the case 
of the IAB, one is not nominated against any one individual, but rather 
nominated for a seat in a pool.  As such, none of the arguments 
presented about the open nominee list seem to apply to the IAB.  And 
even more than the IESG (where some balancing issues do apply) the 
community consensus has seemed to me quite clear that balance of various 
kinds are a set of very important factors in selecting IAB members.

In summary, these seems to me a process which would make the nomcom's 
work harder, would make the work take longer, and would likely reduce 
the quality of the result.

Yours,
Joel M. Halpern

John C Klensin wrote:
> _______________________________________________
> ietf-nomcom mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-nomcom
>

---

From: SM <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 28 May 2009 02:27:35 -0700

Hi John,
>incremental tuning discussed recently on this list.

It's good to think about the mechanism for NomCom.  I am ambivalent 
on whether to change it in such a way.  Whether I agree to the 
changes or not, I believe that it can be easier to do the small 
incremental tuning.  However, that can turn into flipping bits 
without looking at the larger picture.  The various possible cases 
posted previously show that the relationships can be quite complex.

>objections to (or likely need for exceptions from) an open list

A few days ago, I was looking at the length of AD terms.  The average 
length of term for an AD is three and a half years.  The figures 
point to incumbents keeping their seats.  That's both good and 
bad.  It's good if we like the body, as a whole, to have 
continuity.  And it's bad because it creates the old boys and girls 
club.  I'm using the IESG as an example.  I haven't looked at the 
statistics for the other bodies.

Before I proceed to your draft, I'll mention a (probably bad) idea. 
:-)  It would add some zest to the mix to ask the incumbent to 
suggest an alternative for the position.  Obviously, the two people 
should have as little relationship as possible.

Ideally, the "period of contributing to the community" should be 
brief.  That encourages a  flat structure where knowledge is 
dispersed.  In Section 2 of draft-klensin-nomcom-incumbents-first, it 
is mentioned that the "too-low turnover in a decision-making body can 
contribute to that body's having an incomplete impression of the 
views of the community".  It also create a core group and the 
rest.  We need leaders for an organization.  Sometimes we want a 
strong leadership to weather the storms or to instill a sense of 
direction in uncertain times.  Given the way the IETF operates, 
enablers may be better than leaders as that favors a bottom-up 
approach.  Every now and then, I hear a question about "what is the 
I* body doing about X".  Such a question should be viewed as 
pertaining to communicating what's going on instead of one where the 
I* body is expected to be the only solution provider.  Unfortunately, 
the rest find it easier to be complacent and delegate their fate to 
some higher authority.  This is more pronounced in other communities.

I'll diverge from the topic in this paragraph.  The view from the 
community is through the proceedings of the I* bodies.  That's 
available through the minutes they publish.  At this date, the 
lastest IESG's minutes are for May 7 which is less than one 
month.  The latest IAB's minutes are for January 28 which is around 
four months.  The latest IAOC's minutes are dated January 22.

It's difficult to say why NomCom is returning about half the 
incumbents in each cycle.  I will not ask for an reason to that as I 
don't expect NomCom to justify their choices (see previous 
discussions about the open-list draft where I commented on the role 
of NomCom).  As mentioned in your (and Spender's draft), a rate like 
that discourages people from volunteering.

One of the important points, in my opinion, of your draft are the 
principles outlined in Section 2.  When you bear a responsibility for 
too long, it becomes a career.  I'll leave it to the reader to decide 
whether this is a service to the IETF.  There is a learning curve for 
any job.  That should not be used as an excuse for people on their first term.

The discussion about the performance of incumbents in Section 2.1 is 
at odds with what has been said about the "recruiting" model.  In 
such a model, we do make comparisons where the replacement faces a 
higher hurdle unless the incumbent is really bad.

It is good to have diversity in a group or a committee.  That creates 
a group with a breadth of experience and different views (to look at 
a problem from different angles).  Remember that the group is a 
collegial body and not a group of people where each of them compete 
for resources.  Not having a complete slate of candidates can create 
an imbalance in the group.

Every now and then we need a disruptive idea.  Without that, we 
become complacent.  We follow traditions.  They are formalized as 
rules.  And then they become dogma.

Regards,
-sm

---

From: Fred Baker <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 28 May 2009 06:34:33 -0400

On May 27, 2009, at 10:39 AM, Joel M. Halpern wrote:

> It seems to me that the general notion of how many incumbents ought  
> to be returned in any given cycle depends heavily on how many good  
> alternatives there are.

That and whether the nomcom believes that the incumbents did a good  
job. I know of at least one case where it is rumored that all of the  
incumbents were deemed good to return but the nomcom felt obliged to  
sacrifice one, and did so, with quite a bit of hurt feelings around  
the community. That seems unnecessary. And one could just as easily  
imagine a case in which the nomcom felt that none should be returned.

IMHO, the job of the nomcom is not to pass judgement on the  
incumbents. It is, in your words, to find the best person for the job.

---

From: SM <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 30 May 2009 08:22:42 -0700

Hi Joel,
>Having read the draft, it seems to me that this is a bad idea.

Maybe. :-)

>Firstly, I am not sure what problem it solves.  There is apparently 
>some concern about whether the nomcom is returning too many or too 
>few incumbents.  It seems likely to me that real world variation 
>means that there is no right number.  At a guess, given what the 
>community has said, I would personnaly expect to see about half 
>returned each time. And if I look at the numbers in the table, 49/95 
>have been returned. Whatever problems there may be in this 
>dimension, they seem to be self-correcting and self-balancing.

There is a notion of incumbents being "fired".  That seems to be the 
problem when the incumbent is not selected for a new term.

What is the appropriate number of incumbents to be returned?  How 
many is too many and how many is too few?  By mentioning a number, we 
will create another "ringer" problem.  I agree that there isn't a 
right number.  Section 2 of the draft has a table with the percentage 
of incumbents returned.  That provides us with a trend.  Now, what do 
we do when we see a trend?  We figure out whether there is a reason.

>At the same time, this proposal seems to actually make it harder for 
>the nomcom to do a good job.  The goal is to appoint the best 
>available person to the job.
>Choosing to re-appoint or not re-appoint an incumbent without 
>comparison with considering who else may be available and qualified 
>is not, it seems to me, able to meet that goal.

I agree.

>alternatives there are. So I would hate to require the committee to 
>make that decision without having that information.

Yes.

>specific failure modes that would do a disservice to the community 
>and the nomcom.  If the nomcom has many qualified incumbents, if 
>doing a stand-alone evaluation it may choose to return rather more 
>incumbents than it would if it knew that some of those seats had 
>good nominees available.  Similarly, if the nomcom wishes to choose 
>among the incumbents, because it feels that the good ones would 
>still represent returning too many, the nomcom really

We have a problem here.  If the goal is to appoint the best available 
person to the job, then returning too many should not be a 
consideration.  Let's see what happens when you return too many.  It 
may discourage people from running and it encourages a closed social network.

>The document seems to suggest that the answer to some of these 
>issues is to assume that there are always enough good nominees, and 
>that if there are not, maybe the seat should go unfilled.  This is 
>sufficiently far from my understanding of the realities that it 
>seems a dangerous assumption.

If the IETF community doesn't ensure that there are enough good 
nominees, then it has the leadership it deserves.  It has been 
pointed out (not in the draft) that in practice NomCom has ways to 
find nominees.  Not filling in the seat has more to do with the 
relationship between NomCom and the appointing body.

It is perceived that not being selected for a new term means that the 
member has been fired as it is more sociably acceptable to do that 
instead of invoking the recall process.  That perception could be 
tackled by eliminating the notion of incumbents.  We can remove 
"running against" or "firing" from the discussion by doing away with 
consecutive terms.  The draft mentions that retirement after a single 
term is uneconomic for the community.  That obvious fix is to have 
longer terms but then we may have to invoke the recall process.  As 
it will likely be seen as too controversial to use that process, 
we'll end up in the same situation as now.  Feel free to beat the 
idea around and point out why it's a bad one.

Regards,
-sm