Subject: RE: DISCUSSION: publish list of nominees?

From: Geoff Huston <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2002 09:05:13 +1100

At 3/28/2002 06:17 AM, David Allan wrote:

>I think many of the gyrations/arm twisting etc. beyond that point...if 
>necessary...would require minimal justification if it was simply 
>understood that for the NOMCOMs reasons, the list of confirmed candidates 
>did not contain a legitimate contender according to the criteria the 
>NOMCOM formed in talking to the community. It was a snapshot in time of 
>the process.

Having had some considerable first hand experience with this process, your 
view that there would need to be minimal justification is an extremely 
optimistic perspective. The risks of locking the Nomcom to a list that 
needs to be frozen at a point in time, the need to then lengthen out the 
process to allow for adequate time for comment (or more cynically, adequate 
time to organize a campaign), and the issues over the individuals who would 
be willing to participate in such a process all strike me as relatively 
large leaps away from a deliberate and considered process to select as 
candidates those individuals who have superior qualifications for the  role.

I also cannot understand how such a process would instill any increased 
level of confidence in the Nomcom's activities. I personally would see this 
as facilitating the opposite outcome.

   Geoff

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2002 10:15:46 +0100

Geoff Huston wrote:
...
> as facilitating the opposite outcome.

Most of what I think has been said by others, notably Russ White, so I won't
repeat. I also agree with Thomas that we have to be very precise about what
list is published (could even set a date, as in "all willing nominees being
considered N days before the start of the IETF meeting").

That being said, I do believe that this would raise confidence levels that the
NomCom is getting all relevant input. Obviously, it doesn't remove the
theoretical possibility that a NomCom goes collectively mad. That's why
we still need the "reject" button

I suspect we would also want to add a "no campaigning" ethics rule. Many
oranisations have that.

   Brian

---

From: Robert Elz <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2002 17:29:27 +0700

Date:        Thu, 28 Mar 2002 10:15:46 +0100
    From:        Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
    Message-ID:  <[email-masked]>

  | I also agree with Thomas that we have to be very precise about what
  | list is published (could even set a date, as in "all willing nominees being
  | considered N days before the start of the IETF meeting").

I think this is likely to be unworkable, for a reason alluded to by Geoff.

That is, there is no date (or shouldn't be) when a suitable list of
willing nominees is known which it would make sense to publish.

I mean, how would you feel if a list was published, and then none of the
nominated candidates turned out to be people on the list?

But certainly we want the nomcom to be able to consider people who only
are nominated (or become available) rather late in the process, don't we?

The only way a published list could work would be if it was constantly being
updated, but doing that would be essentially revealing the workings of the
nomcom.

When I first saw this suggestion, I had no strong opinion either way, after
reading the messages, and thinking more about what would be involved, and
how it might work, I have become convinced that this would not be a good idea.

kre

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2002 15:18:15 +0100

Robert Elz wrote:
...
> nominated candidates turned out to be people on the list?

Not too bad. It would tell me that community feedback from the published
list had produced some even better names. In fact, that's the point.

...
> updated, 

I don't see that. Publishing a snapshot of the list of *nominees* (not *candidates*)
exactly once works perfectly well to broaden the scope of community input.

    Brian

---

From: Thomas Narten <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2002 09:43:06 -0500

> list had produced some even better names. In fact, that's the point.

I believe you are assuming that the choice the nomcom makes in this
case is "obviously" better (to the community at large) than the other
names on the list. I am not sure this is a valid assumption. The
information the nomcom has and uses in making decisions will in
general not be obvious and transparent to the community at large. For
example, someone with good name recognition within the broad community
may not be chosen by the nomcom precisely because they believe said
person lacks specific skills needed to make (say) an effective AD
(e.g., insufficient managerial or organizational skills).

In some sense, if the selections being made by the nomcom were
"obviously" the right ones, we wouldn't be having any of this
discussion. I suspect that it is because the results are "surprising"
to some folks is what is driving this apparent call for more
transparency and/or change.  Or am I misreading the underlying problem
that needs to be solved?

Thomas

---

From: Robert Elz <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 30 Mar 2002 17:09:11 +0700

Date:        Thu, 28 Mar 2002 15:18:15 +0100
    From:        Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
    Message-ID:  <[email-masked]>

  | I don't see that. Publishing a snapshot of the list of *nominees* (not
  | *candidates*)

I understand the distinction.

  | exactly once works perfectly well to broaden the scope of community input.

So the nomcom gets to hear all the bad (and sometimes good) things about the
initial list they selected, and nothing at all about the replacements they
picked after hearing all that bad stuff???

That sounds like a thoroughly unfair and ineffective way to make progress,
and a very good way to make sure that no-one with half a brain would agree
to be nominated until after the list had been published.

kre