Subject: SUMMARY: publish list of nominees?

From: James M Galvin <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2002 12:56:27 -0500 (EST)

SPEAKING AS EDITOR:

Of the 6 people who I believe expressed a specific opinion about whether
or not to publish the list of nominees there were 4 in favor and 2
against.

The principal argument in favor is that it opens the door for greater
community input.  A NOMCOM can reasonably expect to get input suggesting
nominees and comments about incumbents, but if the community does not
know who is being considered it is problematic for the community to
offer comments (primarily negative comments one would assume) about
nominees.  The NOMCOM only gets input from those it asks.

Another argument in favor is that the NOMCOM essentially publishes the
list of nominees anyway if it, for example, sends a note to the wgchairs
mailing list and asks for comments.

Finally, it was also suggested that publishing the list relieves some of
the burden on the confirming body to ever have to say "no" to one or
more candidates.

I noted two arguments against publishing the list.  Primarily there is
the issue of timing.  New nominees are added throughout the NOMCOM
process so it would be necessary to update the list of nominees on some
regular basis.  There is concern that this is unnecessary overhead of
the process and that this might give too much insight into the
confidential workings of the NOMCOM.

It was also suggested that publishing the list does not relieve the
burden on the confirming bodies to have to say "no" from time to time.

If you disagree with this summary or believe I have missed any
additional information please reply to the list.

From this summary I would propose the following:

    PROPOSED CONSENSUS: We should publish the list of nominees and
    continue to update the list throughout the NOMCOM process.

If you disagree with this proposal please reply to the list.  If you
agree do nothing.  Note that a later message will propose actual and
specific textual changes to the document.

Jim

---

From: "Joel M. Halpern" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2002 13:51:39 -0500

From the discussion, I would like to support publishing a list of people, 
but qualify the list a bit.  My suggestion is that
We should publish the list of confirmed nominees at the point that the 
nominating committee has had a chance to perform such confirmation and 
perform any winnowing of acceptability has been performed.  The nominating 
committee should add any additional confirmed nominees to the list in a 
timely fashion as they occur.

The idea is to get the names out there as soon as they have said yes, but 
not reveal too much about the internal discussions.  Since names may be 
added over time for many reasons (members of the community may volunteer / 
add nominees if they feel the list is insufficient, or the committee may 
twist arms to get nominees they like, or...) I think incremental 
publication of names should be acceptable.  Publication of names that have 
not indicated a willingness to serve seems unfair.
While I would like to publish the "short list" I think that gives too much 
visibility to the nomcomm process and would interfere with fiar internal 
discussion.

Yours,
Joel M. Halpern

---

From: Geoff Huston <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 30 Mar 2002 10:31:23 +1100

I disagree with this summary.

Firstly, you omitted an argument that publishing such a list would increase 
the likelihood of organized public campaigning for positions. you also 
omitted the argument that such actions would do nothing to increase the 
level of confidence in the Nomcom performing its duties diligently.

Secondly, I fail to see how 4 in favour and 2 against can be summarized as 
a "consensus". It is not consensus, it is the view of 4 posters, while 2 
posters dissented. That's not consensus.

Thirdly, I echo concerns by others that the preemptory posting of such 
ex-cathedra pronouncements of "proposed consensus" within a few days of a 
topic being opened is not normally interpreted as responsible chairing of a 
working group. Indeed, one could interpret such actions as being quite the 
opposite. I fail to understand how you interpret this discussion as having 
reached "consensus" at this point in time.

At 3/30/2002 04:56 AM, James M Galvin wrote:
>----------------------------------------------------------------
>To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription
>manager: <http://lists.elistx.com/subscribe>

---

From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2002 17:59:35 -0800

Geoff and all,

Geoff Huston wrote:

> the likelihood of organized public campaigning for positions.

  Is this a "Bad" thing?  If so, why?

> you also

  Oh?  Well how do you justify that statement Geoff?  It seems you fail
to provide the argument to support this statement...

> posters dissented. That's not consensus.

  If there are only 6 total, than it is a majority, ergo a consensus...

> reached "consensus" at this point in time.

  Perhaps.  But perhaps not as well...  Could you please provide the
argument that would accurately and convincingly support your
contention here?

> >specific textual changes to the document.

Regards,
--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 121k members/stakeholdes strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [email-masked]
Contact Number:  972-244-3801 or 214-244-4827
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208

---

From: Randy Bush <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2002 16:45:40 -0800

> reached "consensus" at this point in time.

what he said.

this process itself is broken.

randy

---

From: James M Galvin <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2002 19:56:17 -0500 (EST)

On Sat, 30 Mar 2002, Geoff Huston wrote:

    Firstly, you omitted an argument that publishing such a list would
    increase the likelihood of organized public campaigning for
    positions.

Right, sorry about that.  It was in my notes so it's really just an
oversight.

    you also omitted the argument that such actions would do nothing to
    increase the level of confidence in the Nomcom performing its duties
    diligently.

This was intentional on my part.  This criteria applies to everything so
I chose not to call it out special with respect to this issue.

There are two ways to look at this.  On the one hand, if 6 people
participate in a discussion and 4 support one view and 2 support
another, then consensus is the view of the 4.

On the other hand, I suspect your real concern is the lack of
participation, i.e., that 6 people do not comprise a sufficient quorum
from which to infer a point of view.  All working groups have this
problem, some more than others and some less.  I don't know how to fix
this.  All I can do is work with what's available.  Any suggestions you
have would be welcome.

    Thirdly, I echo concerns by others that the preemptory posting of
    such ex-cathedra pronouncements of "proposed consensus" within a few
    days of a topic being opened is not normally interpreted as
    responsible chairing of a working group.

As noted earlier today in the AGENDA message, I am not the Chair of this
group, Avri Doria is.  Also in that message the process for progressing
issues was described.  The first step in that process is to post a
summary from time to time with a proposed consensus.  It is important to
emphasize that the consensus is *proposed* and that summaries are posted
when appropriate.

In this particular case there had been no messages in almost a day on
this issue.  Further, with a holiday weekend approaching I considered it
*responsible* to summarize where we were, especially since I was doing
it for a number of the issues before us.  All summaries explicitly
invite further comment, which I would equate with *proposed*.

I welcome any suggestions you have for improving the process.

Jim

---

From: Marshall Rose <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2002 19:11:11 -0800

>     continue to update the list throughout the NOMCOM process.

jim - i disagree. publishing a list introduces a lot of problems, like when to publish it, how often, whether the candidates will consent to having their names published, etc.

in other words publishing a list, turns it into an election, and before you know it, we'll start having political parties offering candidates for each open slot. i'll pass on that particular hell, thank you very much.

oh, and there is the little problem of this change not actually solving any actual problem...

/mtr

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2002 23:04:50 -0500

Geoff,

I share your concerns about incomplete summaries and early
consensus assertions (or even hypotheses) as I fear they can
confuse things, rather than helping them converge.  But I want
to address one substantive point (and, I think, disagree with
your conclusion)...

--On Saturday, 30 March, 2002 10:31 +1100 Geoff Huston
<[email-masked]> wrote:

> Firstly, you omitted an argument that publishing such a list
> would increase the likelihood of organized public campaigning
> for positions. you also omitted the argument that such actions
> would do nothing to increase the level of confidence in the
> Nomcom performing its duties diligently.
>...

It seems to me that we have a more or less classic tradeoff
here, not a strong case for one position or the other.  I think
there are two options and two failure cases:

(i) If we expose the names, especially if we do so repeatedly as
the lists get shorter, we increase the risk of organized
campaigning, as you suggest.  We also increase the risk of
certain "dirty tricks" in the election process, e.g., campaigns
to flood the nomcom with derogatory statements about one or more
candidates in the hope of improving the comparative changes of
others.

(ii) If we don't expose the names, we increase the risk that the
nomcom will not get critical information (either positive or
negative) relative to one or more particular candidates because
the people who have that information might not be aware the
individual is being considered.  We also increase the risk of a
slightly different set of "dirty tricks" --e.g., a whispering
campaign to discredit a possible or known candidate-- being
successful because, unless it has internal knowledge, a nomcom
is slightly less likely to get a balanced view.

I personally lean slightly toward the latter as being the better
choice, despite the risks of organized campaigns.  The argument
I find persuasive is that, regardless of how we tune this, a
major challenge facing a nomcom is the separation of information
from noise.  If a given nomcom is good at that and does it
carefully, then a little extra noise (as from an organized
campaign) will not be significant, but a little more information
might be significantly helpful.  I would also expect them to be
suspicious of anyone who seems to be actively campaigning, if
only because actively seeking an IAB or IESG role probably
indicates inadequate understanding of those roles and what is
involved in tham.  And, in the unlikely event that a nomcom is
not careful and diligent in separating signal from noise, I
suggest that the IETF is likely to be in more or less serious
trouble regardless of how we make this particular decision.

     john

---

From: Robert Elz <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 30 Mar 2002 17:00:58 +0700

Date:        Fri, 29 Mar 2002 12:56:27 -0500 (EST)
    From:        James M Galvin <[email-masked]>
    Message-ID:  <[email-masked]>

  |     PROPOSED CONSENSUS: We should publish the list of nominees and
  |     continue to update the list throughout the NOMCOM process.

You can (probably already did) assume I disagree.  This is the worst
of all the possible interpretations of this - consider you see someone
on the list of nominees being considered, then you see them vanish,
clearly they're not the best available choice - then you see them come
back again, and perhaps get nominated (become a candidate, whatever the
term is for that).   So, now its clear to everyone that the best nominee
for the position has not been appointed - but with no idea at all why.

That's an impossible position for anyone to be in.

The only way to avoid that would be to keep people on the list who aren't
seriously being considered, rather than dropping them - which would cause
lots of mail objecting to (sometimes even supporting) people who were never
going to be appointed.

I'd like to see a fully reasoned workable proposal on this before we
start claimimg to have achieved any kind of consensus, or even proposing
consensus - just the way we do in other WG's.

That is, we don't first decide the issue, and then try and figure out how
to make it work, with the issue itself decided, instead we get proposals
for how to make it work, and then see if any of them result in a desirable
outcome.

kre

ps: a whole day with no messages on a topic ... clearly everyone has
said all they're going to say.    What an absurd concept.

---

From: Donald Eastlake 3rd <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 30 Mar 2002 11:27:02 -0500 (EST)

I agree with Robert. The nomcom process is supposed to be a confidential
personnel selection process of people to serve the IETF community. When
a non-profit organization or company selects, say, a Division Director
or Chief Technology Officer or Chief Financial Officer, do they publish
the lists of everyone they are considering and update it continuously
during the process so everyone can chime in with their opinion? Not
in my experience.

Its a continuous slope. If an alphabetic merged list of all suggested
persons for either IAB or IESG were published and updated as names were
added with no names every being dropped, I suppose the damage would be
less. (Although you can't discount the possibility that someone would be
so pissed at being listed they would sue. (It's common for several
people to be suggested to the nomcom for the IAB that do not and have
never had an connection with the IETF. Who knows what such people might
do if publicly listed and not selected?)) But you'd still have the case
of a name added at the last minute and then nominated and confirmed,
which would say to all the others being considered for that position
that the nomcom considered them such a bad possibility that they had to
scrap the bottom of the barrel to find someone acceptable.  (I've been
on four nomcoms and in those there was always at least one and sometimes
2 IESG positions for which the nomcom had to wrack their brains, ask the
members of the community for suggestions, pour over the IAB and the
list, etc., before finding someone they considered good enough to
nominate AND willing to take the job.)

The more information is published, the more it will warp the process
towards a popularity contest, away for a selection of the best person,
and cause embarassment. As a WG chair in both the APPS and SEC areas
this year, I was solicited to rate a number of persons as possible AD in
each area. I understand such requests were was blanket mailed to all WG
chairs for their areas which I believe is the first time this has ever
been done. While I understand that some others obviously have a
different opinion, I consider that such a widespread and broadcast of
who was being considered to be a violation of the nomcom confidentiality
provisions notwithstanding the invocation of nomcom confidentiality in
the message.

There is clearly a balance between getting enough information on persons
being considered and communicating with so many people about who is
being considered to solicit their opinions that the confidentiality
becomes a joke. This year's nomcom was, in my opinion, over the line,
particularly since some persons being considered were WG chairs in the
area for whose AD they were being considered. Thus many being considered
for AD found out who else was being considered, something previous
nomcoms have tried particularly to avoid in most cases.

Donald

On Sat, 30 Mar 2002, Robert Elz wrote:

> Date: Sat, 30 Mar 2002 17:00:58 +0700
> From: Robert Elz <[email-masked]>
> To: James M Galvin <[email-masked]>
> Cc: [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: SUMMARY: publish list of nominees?
>

---

From: Leslie Daigle <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 30 Mar 2002 17:36:35 -0500

I have to say that I resonated with Don's concern about this
year's NomCom having sent a solicitation for information to
all the WG's in the APPs area (it was clearly labeled as "to all
APPS Area WG Chairs").  As a result, I have elsewhere stated
my personal opinion, which has increasingly been that we need to
publish the list of nominees in order to be sure to get adequate
community input.  But, I am swayed by arguments that this 
could create a popularity contest situation, and also that it
puts additional pressure on the NomCom if it doesn't make the
selection that "conventional wisdom" dictates.

So, let's go back to the problem:

	How do we ensure that the NomCom gets the relevant input
	to its deliberations, while maintaining enough
	confidentiality that honest and open information can
	be input, and without turning this into a popularity
	contest?

Input is required for 2 different things:

	. general input on what is needed for a given position

	. specific input on nominees under consideration (or not)

I would argue that some change to existing process is needed, because
as it stands the NomCom is forced to identify the relevant 
sources of information and go solicit it.  The IETF is big
enough that a random committee of 12 isn't likely to span it evenly. 
I don't think that broadcasting a message to all the WG chairs in an
Area  (or even WG chairs + document authors) does it.  And, WG chairs
& doc authors are not the only ones with important input.  

If opening up the list of nominees publicly doesn't do it either,
we need another proposal...

Leslie.

-- 

-------------------------------------------------------------------
"An essential element of a successful journey
    is recognizing when you have arrived."
   -- ThinkingCat

Leslie Daigle
[email-masked]
-------------------------------------------------------------------

---

From: Marshall Rose <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 30 Mar 2002 16:52:22 -0800

> we need another proposal...

my proposal is "do nothing, but ask the nomcom to try something different next year".

one of the reasons we have ex-officio's is to provide pointers to resources for the nomcom. i have no idea why the nomcom felt it necessary to send out a blanket note like that.

many years ago, when i was on the nomcom and asked to research a particular area, i got some input from the ex-officio's on who to talk to, and then i put together a list of both real-candidates and non-candidates. after interviewing each resource for a while, i waited to see who they mentioned. after the resource was talked out, i started asking about non-candidates and real-candidates, explaining to the resource that because i was doing this, they could make no reasonable inference about who was being considered.

in this fashion, i got useful input from several folks, and they had no way of knowing who was really being considered. i felt this protected the confidentiality of the real-candidates and also gave me a handy way of doing a barium-test on the resources i talked to: each conversation had a couple of unique non-candidates. so if a rumor about the nomcom considering someone got leaked, i knew exactly who was doing the leaking...

now perhaps this is too manipulative for folks. fine, i can live with that.

what i do know is that publishing lists of candidates is a bad, bad idea. just because some folks feel that this year's nomcom didn't handle it as well as they might have, doesn't mean we should institutionalize something much worse...

/mtr

---

From: Leslie Daigle <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 30 Mar 2002 21:12:58 -0500

Marshall,

I illustrated my concerns in terms of the actions of the most
recent NomCom, but I was trying to describe the general problem 
that NomComs are increasingly challenged by the task of identifying 
representative and broad-based sources of input.  

In that light, I don't think it's _fair_ to just ask the
next NomCom to 'do something different'.  A year from now,
we'll be complaining they didn't ask _enough_ people for 
input.  Or some other issue.

If not an open nominee list, and not a tortured set of
rules, can we as a community not come up with some more
helpful guidelines -- for the future NomComs, or for the
IETF community interfacing with them?  

Leslie.

-- 

Leslie Daigle
[email-masked]

---

From: "Joel M. Halpern" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 30 Mar 2002 22:37:46 -0500

The concern that the nomcom did not solicit sufficient input is not unique 
to this years committee.  While Marshall may have been personally able to 
put together a list of mixed nominees and non-starter nominees that people 
would believe and have trouble sorting out, that is actually a difficult 
thing to do well.  It is complicated further by the fact that getting good 
input about the nominees the committee is interested is hard enough without 
adding significant amounts of basically irrelevant effort to the members 
work load.

A number of people have expressed concern about the effect on individuals 
of the disclosure of the nominees.  Assuming that the list we are 
discussing is the confirmed nominees, ie people who are actually willing to 
serve if selected, then it seems to me that any person seriously on that 
list for either the IESG or IAB must be able to cope with the level of 
embarrassment and inter-personal tension that may be associated with being 
listed.  While it is not a good property of our community, it is the case 
that IESG and IAB members are always under significant pressure.  If an 
individual can not cope with being publicly listed, then I expect that that 
person would not be able to cope with doing the job.  And similarly, a 
person seeking the job needs to be able to cope with being actively 
de-selected.  (Although I do not want to see any names removed from the 
published list until the candidates are accepted by the review process.)

Another objection has been that it somehow would encourage politicking for 
the list to be published.  I do not follow this.  We are not discussing 
publishing the short list or decision process.  Anyone who would politic 
for the job if the list were public can do so currently.  After all, that 
person knows that they are on the list.

Yours,
Joel M. Halpern

PS: The one regard wherein I disagree with some of the supporters of making 
the list public is that I do not think that this is sufficient to empower 
the review process.  Nonetheless I think that the list of confirmed 
nominees should be public.

At 09:12 PM 3/30/02 -0500, Leslie Daigle wrote:
> > one of the reasons we have ex-officio's is to provide pointers to 
> resources for the nomcom. i have no idea why the nomcom felt it necessary 
> to send out a blanket note like that.
> >
> > many years ago, when i was on the nomcom and asked to research a 
> particular area, i got some input from the ex-officio's on who to talk 
> to, and then i put together a list of both real-candidates and 
> non-candidates. after interviewing each resource for a while, i waited to 
> see who they mentioned. after the resource was talked out, i started 
> asking about non-candidates and real-candidates, explaining to the 
> resource that because i was doing this, they could make no reasonable 
> inference about who was being considered.
> >
> > in this fashion, i got useful input from several folks, and they had no 
> way of knowing who was really being considered. i felt this protected the 
> confidentiality of the real-candidates and also gave me a handy way of 
> doing a barium-test on the resources i talked to: each conversation had a 
> couple of unique non-candidates. so if a rumor about the nomcom 
> considering someone got leaked, i knew exactly who was doing the leaking...
> >
> > what i do know is that publishing lists of candidates is a bad, bad 
> idea. just because some folks feel that this year's nomcom didn't handle 
> it as well as they might have, doesn't mean we should institutionalize 
> something much worse...
> >
> > /mtr
> >

---

From: Bob Hinden <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 30 Mar 2002 20:13:33 -0800

I am a member of this years nomcom and have served on two other nomcoms in 
prior  years.  I was also active in the IETF when the events took place 
that caused the current nomcom process to be created.

While I think making the list of nominees public solves some problems, I 
think the new problems it creates are worse.  Specifically, it will likely 
turn the selection into a popularity contest.  This would be very bad.

I think a possible middle ground is to make it clear to potential nominees 
that when they fill in a questionnaire and agree to be considered for a 
position, the nomcom will be asking relevant people about their views on 
them.  This will be not done to the world, but to people in a position to 
provide feed back to the nomcom.

Bob

---

From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 30 Mar 2002 22:54:26 -0800

Bob and all,

  As the noncom and the IETF serve a public function, I think that now that
the net has grown so much it is time for the noncom and the IETF
to change.  The public has a right, as do other IETF participants
whom the list of nominees are and what their background is that
qualifies in them as nominees.  Yes it is true that popularity
may play a part, as it does now, but a different relation
to popularity.  But such is part of the potential growing pains
that would seem necessary to potentially endure.  Accept the
challenge Bob.  I know you and others can.

Regards,

---

From: Marshall Rose <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 30 Mar 2002 21:25:24 -0800

> provide feed back to the nomcom.

i think this is a reasonable perspective.

/mtr

---

From: Marshall Rose <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 30 Mar 2002 21:28:23 -0800

> representative and broad-based sources of input.  

i guess i disagree that the nomcoms are *increasingly* challenged.

> input.  Or some other issue.

the "cure" (of publically presenting a list) is far worse than the problem.

> IETF community interfacing with them?  

well, that's the problem, isn't it? trying to codify something for the nomcom. i don't think we can give them good guidance, so i'd prefer not to give them guidance and let them figure out what works best for them.

/mtr

---

From: avri <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 31 Mar 2002 17:55:46 +0200

hi,

going back to the subject here.

what was the problem?  if i understand, it is that the 
community is not getting a chance to provide feedback before 
the decisions are made.  assuming that the issue of an 
effective approval capability for the approving bodes is 
resolved, is it conceivable that publishing the candidate 
list instead of the confirmed nominee list might be useful?

it might sort of have the same effect as an IETF last call.
i.e. 'the approving bodes are about to make a final decision
       - if anyone has any comments on the candidates
         please speak now.'

certainly anyone who has been through the nomcom process and 
is ready to take on a job if approved should be willing to 
withstand that last bit of scrutiny.  it might also obviate 
any possibility of beauty contest since it would not be part 
of the choosing process, only of the approving process.  it 
also avoids some of the complexities publishing a dynamic 
list of nominees might present (as a past chair the 
mechanics of updating the list whenever the nomcom decides 
to comb the woods for other nominees is somewhat worrisome)

just a thought.

a.

---

From: Scott Brim <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 31 Mar 2002 14:12:47 -0500

>        - if anyone has any comments on the candidates

Way too late.  Again, judging the result doesn't help.  Ensuring that
the process is good does.

> of the choosing process, only of the approving process.

wrt beauty contests ... I assume the nomcom would take relevant
information into account, not just popularity.  Yes there might be
intense lobbying efforts, but how much would those count?  Finally, to
the extent that popularity does become a factor, well, being well
thought of is, in fact, a good attribute for an AD.

...Scott

---

From: Scott Brim <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 31 Mar 2002 14:09:39 -0500

> 	be input, and without turning this into a popularity

The other reason is accountability.  This year I heard more people than
usual wondering how the nomcom reached their decisions.

I like the thread that says the goal of IAB/ISOC oversight is not to
judge the nomcom's results, but to make sure the process is well done.

Consider using a web site to expose the count of nominees being
considered, as it changes over time, and then eventually exposing the
names on the short list, or even the list of confirmed nominees.  I
doubt the first part would require any changes to written procedures.

...Scott

---

From: Marshall Rose <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 31 Mar 2002 11:38:11 -0800

> the process is good does.

yeah, but there's already 4 ex-officios on the nomcom that are supposed to provide adult supervision. how much more ex-officio/outside/whatever help do we need?

publishing summary snapshots of what's going on inside the nomcom isn't going to help, but will add a lot of noise.

the reason we have those 4 ex-officios there is to make sure that all the right people and questions get asked...

/mtr

---

From: "Joel M. Halpern" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 31 Mar 2002 14:59:54 -0500

Actually, my understanding of the current procedures (and from conversation 
a lot of other peoples understanding) is that the 4 ex-officio members are 
not there to "provide adult supervision".  The Chair is supposed to provide 
such supervision.  There is a lot of discussion about what role the other 
ex-officio members are supposed to play, but the wording does not lead me 
to understand that they are intended to provide supervision.
If we want the ex-officio members to provide such supervision, we had best 
say so.

Yours,
Joel M. Halpern

At 11:38 AM 3/31/02 -0800, Marshall Rose wrote:
>yeah, but there's already 4 ex-officios on the nomcom that are supposed to 
>provide adult supervision. how much more ex-officio/outside/whatever help 
>do we need?

---

From: Marshall Rose <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 31 Mar 2002 14:05:35 -0800

> If we want the ex-officio members to provide such supervision, we had best 

you seem to equate adult supervision with being in charge. it isn't. it's considerably more subtle and valuable. (of course, one of the ex-officio's is the chair of the nomcom.)

the idea behind having the four there is that you have another set of checks and balances between the different organizations and personnel. (in addition, of course, to having folks there who can answer questions about how the bodies operate and provide pointers to lots of resources...

so, i'm back to "no change is needed". 

/mtr

---

From: Scott Brim <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 31 Mar 2002 17:14:09 -0500

> From: "Marshall Rose" <[email-masked]>
> Sent: Sunday, March 31, 2002 5:05 PM

> you seem to equate adult supervision with being in charge. it isn't.
> it's considerably more subtle and valuable. (of course, one of the
> ex-officio's is the chair of the nomcom.)
>
> the idea behind having the four there is that you have another set of
> checks and balances between the different organizations and personnel.
> (in addition, of course, to having folks there who can answer
> questions about how the bodies operate and provide pointers to lots of
> resources...
>

If we could give the ex officio members the responsibility of keeping the
process superb, in writing, that might be all we need.

---

From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 31 Mar 2002 17:26:05 -0800

Scott and all,

> usual wondering how the nomcom reached their decisions.

  This is exactly right.  Same problem is occurring with ICANN as well
Accountability sometimes requires forgoing confidentiality if a public
service
and interest is at stake.  Transparency and openness is required of the
noncom.

> judge the nomcom's results, but to make sure the process is well done.

  In part this is true.  Also the IAB/ISOC should and may also
put forth an opinion of their own as well as to noncom decisions,
make public inquiries as to how any decisions were arrived at
as it may effect the stakeholders of otherwise members.

> doubt the first part would require any changes to written procedures.

  This is only half of what should and needs to be done.  Any all
nominees should be required to publicly identify themselves, the
process should be open enough to encourage this.

Regards,