Subject: Nomcom off in the wilderness: Transport AD

From: Sam Hartman <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 06 Mar 2013 07:26:57 -0500

I have a huge number of concerns with Russ's message and am frustrated
and disappointed when I think about this year's nomcom process.  I just
sent a message to the nomcom and iab about one of my concerns, and would
like to ask you whether you think you should do the same.  I
specifically ask you not to reply to this message in public and
appreciate your respect for the sensitivities involved.

To get to this point, some combination of the nomcom and IAB has to have
reached the conclusion that we don't have any qualified transport
candidates when all aspects of the requirements including available time
are considered.

I believe based on the information I have available that's a very
dubious conclusion and that there are multiple candidates I suspect are
qualified to fill the position.  I think that the nomcom is sufficiently
off-base here that it's worth asking the community to evaluate whether
I'm write or not.  I wrote a long message to the nomcom and IAB
explaining why I thought their conclusion is dead wrong.  This is not an
appropriate question to debate on the IETf list, and discussing specific
candidates is even more inappropriate than debating the general
question.

However, there is something you can do. Take a quick moment to look at
the set of nominees and consider what you know about their
qualifications.  If you think there are qualified candidates, write to
the nomcom; I think you should copy the IAB too, because we don't know
where in the process things stopped.  If you think that I'm wrong and we
don't have qualified candidates it definitely seems wroth dropping the
nomcom a note explaining your reasoning.

I think this issues is important enough that it's worth your time to
look into it especially if you may have information on qualifications.q

I'd also appreciate private feedback on how I could improve my approach
for raising this concern. I'm not at all sure that sending this message
was the best choice, but I feel very strongly that we may have mad a
serious error this year, and this is the best I could come up with.

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 06 Mar 2013 05:57:03 -0800

On 3/6/2013 4:26 AM, Sam Hartman wrote:
> qualifications.
...
> was the best choice,
...

I don't have an opinion about the current candidates.  This note 
concerns Sam's effort:  I think it's thoughtful and reasonable, within 
the bounds of the situation, IETF rules, and IETF culture.

And I have a further suggestion, which some other folk and I happened to 
have discussed privately some time ago and unrelated to the specific TSV 
situation...

There's an option available that the candidates might want to consider, 
to facilitate the public review of candidate qualifications:

Candidates fill out a questionnaire for Nomcom review.  Roughly, it has 
two parts, with one that is available to Nomcom and the appropriate 
Confirming Body, and a second that is withheld from the Confirming Body.

      Candidates could choose to circulate the first part publicly.

Nomcom is prohibited from making these documents public, but the 
candidates are not.

The long-standing argument against publicly issuing this information is 
that it might be seen as politicking, and the IETF Nomcom process tries 
hard to avoid such opportunities.  The language in the forms is 
necessarily self-promoting.  After all, the candidate is trying to 
explain why they think they are appropriate for a job.

However there is a difference between explaining why you think you are 
qualified, versus the hype of politicking.  One would hope that IETF 
participants can tell that difference.  And it could be helpful for the 
community to see how a candidate sees themselves.

d/
-- 
  Dave Crocker
  Brandenburg InternetWorking
  bbiw.net

---

From: "Bert Wijnen (IETF)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 06 Mar 2013 15:03:24 +0100

Dave, it seems to me that with your suggestion it feels as if
you (or we the community) want to redo some of the nomcom work?
I.e. you do not trust their evaluations?

They also have received (I presume) lots of feedback on the candidates
and probably did some interviews. We do not have that info. So tough
to challenge them based on only nominees statements.

Bert Wijnen

On 3/6/13 2:57 PM, Dave Crocker wrote:
> I don't have an opinion about the current candidates.  This note concerns Sam's effort:  I think it's thoughtful and reasonable,
> within the bounds of the situation, IETF rules, and IETF culture.
>
> And I have a further suggestion, which some other folk and I happened to have discussed privately some time ago and unrelated to the
> specific TSV situation...
>
> There's an option available that the candidates might want to consider, to facilitate the public review of candidate qualifications:
>
> Candidates fill out a questionnaire for Nomcom review.  Roughly, it has two parts, with one that is available to Nomcom and the
> appropriate Confirming Body, and a second that is withheld from the Confirming Body.
>
> Nomcom is prohibited from making these documents public, but the candidates are not.
>
> The long-standing argument against publicly issuing this information is that it might be seen as politicking, and the IETF Nomcom
> process tries hard to avoid such opportunities.  The language in the forms is necessarily self-promoting.  After all, the candidate
> is trying to explain why they think they are appropriate for a job.
>
> However there is a difference between explaining why you think you are qualified, versus the hype of politicking.  One would hope
> that IETF participants can tell that difference.  And it could be helpful for the community to see how a candidate sees themselves.
>
> d/

---

From: Eric Gray <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2013 14:16:35 +0000

Dave,

	There's an aspect of what people tend to include when talking about "politicking" that is
not - AFAIK - part of the job as a member of the IESG or as an AD.  That aspect is the desire to be
much in the public.

	So far, it has not been any part of the normal duties of an IESG member or AD to hold
press conferences, glad-handing with the masses, baby kissing, etc.

	Opening up the process to allow (read "encourage") candidates to "go public" with their
(so far) relatively private observations about why they would be a good candidate for the job is
very likely to effectively eliminate some potential candidates who are unwilling to do so but are 
otherwise completely qualified to do the job.

	This would become particularly true if the NomCom - and the IETF as a whole - were to
develop expectations that this would routinely happen, or suspicions about those who don't wish
to do so.

	Because this aspect of "politicking" should not become a criteria for the job, there is more
to the general desire to avoid it than the notion that we just don't want to see it.

--
Eric

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Dave Crocker
Sent: Wednesday, March 06, 2013 8:57 AM
To: [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: Nomcom off in the wilderness: Transport AD

...
> for raising this concern. I'm not at all sure that sending this 
> message was the best choice,
...

I don't have an opinion about the current candidates.  This note concerns Sam's effort:  I think it's thoughtful and reasonable, within the bounds of the situation, IETF rules, and IETF culture.

And I have a further suggestion, which some other folk and I happened to have discussed privately some time ago and unrelated to the specific TSV situation...

Candidates fill out a questionnaire for Nomcom review.  Roughly, it has two parts, with one that is available to Nomcom and the appropriate Confirming Body, and a second that is withheld from the Confirming Body.

The long-standing argument against publicly issuing this information is that it might be seen as politicking, and the IETF Nomcom process tries hard to avoid such opportunities.  The language in the forms is necessarily self-promoting.  After all, the candidate is trying to explain why they think they are appropriate for a job.

However there is a difference between explaining why you think you are qualified, versus the hype of politicking.  One would hope that IETF participants can tell that difference.  And it could be helpful for the community to see how a candidate sees themselves.

d/

---

From: Sam Hartman <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 06 Mar 2013 09:17:44 -0500

>>>>> "Dave" == Dave Crocker <[email-masked]> writes:

    Dave> And I have a further suggestion, which some other folk and I
    Dave> happened to have discussed privately some time ago and
    Dave> unrelated to the specific TSV situation...

    Dave> There's an option available that the candidates might want to
    Dave> consider, to facilitate the public review of candidate
    Dave> qualifications:

    Dave> Candidates fill out a questionnaire for Nomcom review.
    Dave> Roughly, it has two parts, with one that is available to
    Dave> Nomcom and the appropriate Confirming Body, and a second that
    Dave> is withheld from the Confirming Body.

    Dave>      Candidates could choose to circulate the first part
    Dave> publicly.

I think having a public discussion of specific candidates would be
undesirable.  Because Russ's message was posted while the nomcom process
is ongoing, we're already in a situation where it feels like where we're
publicly debating whether a set of named candidates are preferable to an
empty seat.  I understand russ dworked as hard as he could to avoid
that.  However, it's reasonably obvious that it's impossible to avoid
that and if you read comments in the ietf list, it's actually true that
the community has taken it to that level.

Now, perhaps there are folks in the IETf with egos big enough that
they're not phased by standing in front of the community while the
community debates whether an empty seat would be an improvement over
them.  I actually suspect knowing that can happen is likely to reduce
future candidate pools.  I know I'd almost certainly withdraw from the
process rather than face that.  This process has reduced my willingness
to consider future nominations; pressuring candidates to release their
answers to questions would do so further.

--Sam

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 06 Mar 2013 06:18:33 -0800

> to challenge them based on only nominees statements.

Bert,

I'm not commenting on the current Nomcom.  I don't have an opinion about 
the current Nomcom.

Sam is calling for the community to do additional review of the current 
candidates and provide additional input.  I am merely suggesting 
something that would facilitate that: People providing feedback can 
tailor their comments better if they have some idea of the candidates 
own statements to Nomcom.

The earlier, private discussion that I referenced was to the potential 
benefits of making the questionnaires public regularly, but that's a 
major policy change.  My current suggestion does not require that, since 
it's a matter of personal choice by each candidate.

As for the possible long-term change in policy, different factors affect 
who provides comments to Nomcom and what comments they provide.

I can't see a downside to the public availability of a candidate's own 
statements to Nomcom about their background and qualifications.  I see 
the upside of providing the community with a more complete gauge for 
judging what types of comments to provide as feedback to Nomcom about 
the candidate.

d/

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 06 Mar 2013 09:21:58 -0500

--On Wednesday, March 06, 2013 14:16 +0000 Eric Gray
<[email-masked]> wrote:

>...
> 	So far, it has not been any part of the normal duties of an
> IESG member or AD to hold press conferences, glad-handing with
> the masses, baby kissing, etc.
>...

I can't speak to baby kissing but the above statement is true
only if you exclude the IETF Chair from "IESG member or AD".
Perhaps we could change it if we really wanted to, but we should
face the fact --and I hope that Nomcoms understand-- that the
IETF Chair role has expanded to include a great deal of public
representation of the IETF and, indeed, public politics.

    john

---

From: Eric Gray <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2013 14:29:30 +0000

John,

	I considered this before making my reply, especially in light of a number of recent
events with which I am intimately familiar.

	To become the Chair of the IESG involves a second level of selection that is much
more political.  You have to be selected - I believe - for the role by your peers on the IESG.
This then is a matter for the IESG, more than the NomCom, or the IETF as a whole.

	This is - I feel sure - one of the things that a NomCom has to consider in picking folks
for IESG membership: there needs to be at least one AD on the IESG that is both willing and
able to take on this role.

	But - let's face it - this should be obvious to any reasonably competent NomCom that
is having to replace an outgoing Chair.

	But it is most definitely NOT something that every AD has to be prepared to do...

--
Eric

-----Original Message-----
From: John C Klensin [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Wednesday, March 06, 2013 9:22 AM
To: Eric Gray
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: RE: Nomcom off in the wilderness: Transport AD
Importance: High

--On Wednesday, March 06, 2013 14:16 +0000 Eric Gray <[email-masked]> wrote:

>...
> 	So far, it has not been any part of the normal duties of an  IESG 
>member or AD to hold press conferences, glad-handing with  the masses, 
>baby kissing, etc.
>...

I can't speak to baby kissing but the above statement is true only if you exclude the IETF Chair from "IESG member or AD".
Perhaps we could change it if we really wanted to, but we should face the fact --and I hope that Nomcoms understand-- that the IETF Chair role has expanded to include a great deal of public representation of the IETF and, indeed, public politics.

    john

---

From: Donald Eastlake <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2013 09:37:23 -0500

Eric,

As far as I know, that's completely wrong. The IETF Chair, sometimes
known as the AD for the General Area, is selected by the nomcom and
confirmed by the IAB just like all other ADs. They are not elected
chair of the IESG by the IESG members.

Thanks,
Donald
=============================
 Donald E. Eastlake 3rd   +1-508-333-2270 (cell)
 155 Beaver Street, Milford, MA 01757 USA
 [email-masked]

---

From: Mary Barnes <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2013 08:39:54 -0600

Eric,

You are describing the process of IAB selection as opposed to IESG
selection for ensuring there is someone that is a potential chair.
The IAB voting members select the IAB chair.  The IESG members  do not
select the IETF chair.

Regards,
Mary.

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 06 Mar 2013 14:40:59 +0000

Eric,

> more political.  You have to be selected - I believe - for the role by your peers on the IESG.

You believe wrongly. The NomCom nominates the IETF Chair, who also serves
as IESG Chair and as AD for the General Area.

> able to take on this role.

That applies to the IAB, but not to the IESG.

    Brian

---

From: Jari Arkko <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2013 16:41:57 +0200

Eric: you may be thinking of the IAB chair. IETF chair / Gen AD is selected by the noncom, whereas the IAB chair is selected by IAB members (from the pool of the IAB members).

[Baby kissing? Now there is a job requirement that I missed… :-) ]

Jari

---

From: Margaret Wasserman <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2013 09:45:55 -0500

Hi Eric,

The IETF Chair (who also chairs the IESG) is not selected by the IESG members from amongst themselves.  The IETF Chair is chosen by the nomcom directly.

The IAB chair is chosen by the IAB as you have described.

Margaret

---

From: Eric Gray <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2013 14:46:34 +0000

Thanks.

-----Original Message-----
From: Margaret Wasserman [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Wednesday, March 06, 2013 9:46 AM
To: Eric Gray
Cc: John C Klensin; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: Nomcom off in the wilderness: Transport AD
Importance: High

Hi Eric,

Margaret

On Mar 6, 2013, at 9:29 AM, Eric Gray <[email-masked]> wrote:

> John,
> 
> 	I considered this before making my reply, especially in light of a 
> number of recent events with which I am intimately familiar.
> 
> 	To become the Chair of the IESG involves a second level of selection 
> that is much more political.  You have to be selected - I believe - for the role by your peers on the IESG.
> 	This is - I feel sure - one of the things that a NomCom has to 
> consider in picking folks for IESG membership: there needs to be at 
> least one AD on the IESG that is both willing and able to take on this role.
> 
> 	But - let's face it - this should be obvious to any reasonably 
> competent NomCom that is having to replace an outgoing Chair.
> 
>> member or AD to hold press conferences, glad-handing with  the 
>> masses, baby kissing, etc.
>> ...
>

---

From: Eric Gray <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2013 14:47:41 +0000

Brian,

	Thanks!  Not sure that this changes anything with respect to the rest of the
IESG, however...

--
Eric

-----Original Message-----
From: Brian E Carpenter [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Wednesday, March 06, 2013 9:41 AM
To: Eric Gray
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: Nomcom off in the wilderness: Transport AD
Importance: High

Eric,

> that is much more political.  You have to be selected - I believe - for the role by your peers on the IESG.

You believe wrongly. The NomCom nominates the IETF Chair, who also serves as IESG Chair and as AD for the General Area.

    Brian

---

From: Eric Gray <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2013 14:48:32 +0000

Thanks, Mary.

-----Original Message-----
From: Mary Barnes [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Wednesday, March 06, 2013 9:40 AM
To: Eric Gray
Cc: John C Klensin; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: Nomcom off in the wilderness: Transport AD
Importance: High

Eric,

You are describing the process of IAB selection as opposed to IESG selection for ensuring there is someone that is a potential chair.
The IAB voting members select the IAB chair.  The IESG members  do not select the IETF chair.

Regards,
Mary.

On Wed, Mar 6, 2013 at 8:29 AM, Eric Gray <[email-masked]> wrote:
> John,
>
>         I considered this before making my reply, especially in light 
> of a number of recent events with which I am intimately familiar.
>
>         To become the Chair of the IESG involves a second level of 
> selection that is much more political.  You have to be selected - I believe - for the role by your peers on the IESG.
>>IESG member or AD to hold press conferences, glad-handing with  the

---

From: Eric Gray <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2013 14:49:03 +0000

:-)

-----Original Message-----
From: Donald Eastlake [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Wednesday, March 06, 2013 9:37 AM
To: Eric Gray
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: Nomcom off in the wilderness: Transport AD
Importance: High

Eric,

As far as I know, that's completely wrong. The IETF Chair, sometimes known as the AD for the General Area, is selected by the nomcom and confirmed by the IAB just like all other ADs. They are not elected chair of the IESG by the IESG members.

Thanks,
Donald
=============================
 Donald E. Eastlake 3rd   +1-508-333-2270 (cell)
 155 Beaver Street, Milford, MA 01757 USA  [email-masked]

---

From: Hannes Tschofenig <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2013 17:05:00 +0200

Hi Sam, 

I think the Nomcom has made the right decision to bring the job requirement discussion to the community. 
The discussion about the evolution of the Transport Area had also been very insightful to me. 

I hope you provided your feedback to the Nomcom when they asked for it.
 
Ciao
Hannes

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 06 Mar 2013 08:00:02 -0800

On 3/6/2013 6:17 AM, Sam Hartman wrote:
> undesirable.

Just to be clear:  I am not suggesting public discussion.  I'm 
suggesting that candidates make their responses available to the 
community, so the community can have additional information for 
providing feedback to the Nomcom.

By way of anticipating the challenge our community has in restraint from 
the type of public discussion you cite, I could imagine that the 
sergeant at arms of the ietf list could declare discussion of specific 
candidates inappropriate.

>  I actually suspect knowing that can happen is likely to reduce
> future candidate pools.

We went 20 years with this same concern being used as a basis for not 
making the list of candidates public.  It actually hurt Nomcom's work 
quite a bit, and making the list public has been massively helpful.

There needs to be limits to public review, which is why it makes sense 
for Nomcom deliberations to be private.  But there is also a need for 
appropriate amounts of public accountability.

d/

---

From: Mary Barnes <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2013 10:40:15 -0600

On Wed, Mar 6, 2013 at 10:00 AM, Dave Crocker <[email-masked]> wrote:
> Just to be clear:  I am not suggesting public discussion.  I'm suggesting
> that candidates make their responses available to the community, so the
> community can have additional information for providing feedback to the
> Nomcom.
[MB] I think the Nomcom wiki would be a natural place for these
questionnaires to be made available.  I think that could improve the
quality and usefulness of community input.  It's hard for folks to
remember everything someone has done in a particular area -
particularly things that happened 10-12 years back.  Very few people
are involved in every draft/work item someone progresses, nor are they
in all the WG sessions they chair.  They may also have forgotten an
individual took over critical and conflict ridden working group
documents and successfully brought them to completion. When something
goes smoothly per the process, the work to do that is often not
visible.   Many of the individuals that provide input are not aware of
all the conflicts and challenges an individual has dealt with.  This
also gives the community more insight into how the individual would
deal with challenges in the area and what the individual sees as
challenges.

In addition, having this information readily available provides
background as to what the individual has accomplished outside IETF.
There are IETF participants that are under-utilized in IETF in terms
of what they are capable of based upon past accomplishments across a
variety of technologies as well as other relevant SDO experiences.  I
believe this latter point relates to the discussion around whether
someone that has shown they can learn new things quickly and is
capable of applying skills that have already been developed (in
another context) to a new technical context.  IMHO, folks that have
only IETF or a single technology experience may be less effective
overall than folks with broader industry experience.  In particular
given that some of the discussion around the AD roles is the
importance of being able to evaluate work across multiple areas.

Based on my experiences with Nomcom, the comments from the community
are often actually not that helpful.  Despite the request, many of the
comments don't provide constructive detail that allows the Nomcom
(many who have zero personal or work experience with the nominees) to
make decisions with any objectivity.  Right now, the process is almost
entirely subjective.  Not to get too OT to this post, but I'll bring
up the fact again, that only a small percentage of the community
(including leadership!) actually provide input to the process.  It was
only around 10% when I chaired nomcom - that's pathetic IMHO.

In one sense, I think this suggestion is entirely consistent with how
an organization evaluates folks for work positions.  Often a hiring
manager will ask folks that will be peers to review resumes, interview
the individual and provide comments even though they are not the ones
to make the final decision. In terms of Nomcom, the voting members are
in a similar role as hiring managers and the folks that review the
resumes and provide comments are just peers that can provide valuable
input to the hiring manager so they get an employee with good
qualifications.
[/MB]
>
> By way of anticipating the challenge our community has in restraint from the
> type of public discussion you cite, I could imagine that the sergeant at
> arms of the ietf list could declare discussion of specific candidates
> inappropriate.
>
[MB] Per my suggestion, this wouldn't be an issue at all. Folks
provide the questionnaire to the Nomcom.  Of course, the Nomcom may
want to reconsider what questions might be public versus nomcom only -
just as was done 5 years ago with regards to what information is
shared with the confirming bodies. [/MB]
> We went 20 years with this same concern being used as a basis for not making
> the list of candidates public.  It actually hurt Nomcom's work quite a bit,
> and making the list public has been massively helpful.
[MB] Exactly. [/MB]
>
> There needs to be limits to public review, which is why it makes sense for
> Nomcom deliberations to be private.  But there is also a need for

---

From: Melinda Shore <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 06 Mar 2013 08:05:59 -0900

> Candidates could choose to circulate the first part publicly.

I'm really, really against turning this into an election-like process
just because one nomcom did a bad job (and I agree they did).

Melinda

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 06 Mar 2013 09:35:02 -0800

> just because one nomcom did a bad job (and I agree they did).

It has always been an election process.  Nomcom does the voting.

Candidates formulate their questionnaire responses and their Nomcom 
interviews in a manner to cast themselves in the most appealing light. 
They've decided they want the job, so they seek to convince Nomcom to 
choose them.

The process is designed to mitigate organized electioneering, attack of 
other candidates, and the rest of the hype and mayhem that most/all of 
us detest.  And even penalizes candidates who engage in it.

So forgive me for indulging in a cliche'd reference, be we are merely 
haggling price here.

Price matters.  The methods used by a candidate matter.  But in this 
case, the document already is part of the process.  The only change 
would be in who gets to see it.

Arguments against having the community see it are limited to a concern 
about candidate privacy and a concern that it will engender public 
commentary about the person.

The first doesn't make any sense; what specifically needs to be kept 
private from the questionnaire response?

The second is mitigated by simply prohibiting it.

d/

---

From: Bob Hinden <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2013 11:45:24 -0800

Hi,

> Just to be clear:  I am not suggesting public discussion.  I'm suggesting that candidates make their responses available to the community, so the community can have additional information for providing feedback to the Nomcom.

I agree with Dave on this.  

I try to give feedback on the NomCom lists of candidates.  For people I know, I can do this, for people I don't know well it's difficult.  It would help me if I could read some of the material they submitted with their acceptance of the nomination to see why they want the job, and their qualifications and experience.

The IETF has grown a lot over the years to the point where most people don't know all of the candidates.

Bob

---

From: Eric Gray <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2013 20:59:10 +0000

Bob,

	This confuses me.  Are you saying that you would be more able to give feedback on someone
you don't know if you knew what they might have to say about themselves?

	I would think that - if you don't know somebody - you can't give feedback on them (and that is
precisely as it should be).

--
Eric

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Bob Hinden
Sent: Wednesday, March 06, 2013 2:45 PM
To: [email-masked]
Cc: Bob Hinden; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: Nomcom off in the wilderness: Transport AD

Hi,

Bob

---

From: Jari Arkko <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2013 23:00:13 +0200

Sam,

Thanks for raising this issue. The issue about what kind of candidates are suitable for the task.

However, even if you asked us to not reply to your mail on the public list, I wanted to do it for one aspect. I have a suggestion that relates to who you are directing your criticism to. You've been a part of the nomination process, you know it is not easy. 

When it comes to feedback on candidates and the tasks, noncom does need your feedback. Please tell them what you think.

But when it comes to the "off in the wilderness" part, I have a very strong opinion. Please do not take it out on the noncom, confirming bodies, or the process. I think the buck stops in this particular situation with the IESG, whose requirements they are following. Just like when the spec is wrong, you do not blame the vendor. And yes, we at the IESG do see this as a serious situation. And we have taken steps to explain the situation to the community, arrange an opportunity to discuss what we should do, and, I believe, eventually we will revise the requirements and let the nomination process complete. I actually believe bringing the issue up to the community is a good thing, rather than having the noncom, the IESG, or the confirming bodies just making a decision without telling you about the circumstances. We are obviously open to feedback on how all this should be done, particularly when this is a new situation for all of us. But I just wanted to say that if you have criticism on the overall situation, the right place to send feedback is the IESG. You can start with me, I am committed to resolving this somehow. I need all my team members in place :-)

Thanks,

Jari

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 06 Mar 2013 16:11:33 -0500

--On Wednesday, March 06, 2013 09:35 -0800 Dave Crocker
<[email-masked]> wrote:

> Candidates formulate their questionnaire responses and their
> Nomcom interviews in a manner to cast themselves in the most
> appealing light. They've decided they want the job, so they
> seek to convince Nomcom to choose them.

I believe it is still possible to have a candidate who is
willing to take a position out of a sense of obligation to the
community rather than "wanting the job".  Such a candidate might
include information, including reflections on the position and
possible other candidates, in a questionnaire that should
absolutely not be made public.  Pushing candidates in directions
that either require questionnaire disclosure or that cause the
community to wonder why a particular candidate would not
disclose discourages such "willing but don't actually want the
job" candidacies in the future.  I suggest that is not in the
interest of the community, YMMD.

Less likely, but still possible, a candidate may disclose
(presumably with permission based on the Nomcom's
confidentiality obligations when needed) truly confidential
material such as future job prospects or even plans within the
organization for which he or she currently works.  Again, if the
candidate can't be assured that information will be kept
confidential, with no pressure to disclose, we essentially
discourage candidates who have information of that type that
then cannot be revealed to the Nomcom.

I suggest that is is not in the interest of the community to
discourage candidates in that sort of position either.  Again,
YMMD.

>...
> Arguments against having the community see it are limited to a
> concern about candidate privacy and a concern that it will
> engender public commentary about the person.
 
> The first doesn't make any sense; what specifically needs to
> be kept private from the questionnaire response?

"Candidate privacy" in the examples I've given above may extend
to organizational privacy or issues that could jeopardize the
candidate's job.

To put something Sam (I think) said in a slightly different
light, we can made the process of being a candidate (and giving
the Nomcom whatever information it might want or need)
sufficiently unpleasant that the only people who will offer
their names are those who really, really, want the jobs, perhaps
because possessing one of those seats would be a good industry
move for their companies.     Maybe eliminating candidacies from
those who would be qualified and willing to do the jobs but who
dislike the public disrobing, or eliminating anyone whose
companies are willing to support them in IETF leadership roles
but don't see corporate advantage in having them in those
positions, would be an acceptable tradeoff against disclosure of
questionnaires, job details, etc.  I just don't happen to think
so, but I gather that you disagree.

> The second is mitigated by simply prohibiting it.

That prohibition will work because there has never been a
whispering campaign in the IETF.  Never.

    john

---

From: John E Drake <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2013 21:08:13 +0000

Eric,

This was exactly the point I made earlier in an email to Dave Crocker.

Irrespectively Yours,

John

> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of
> Eric Gray
> Sent: Wednesday, March 06, 2013 12:59 PM
> To: Bob Hinden; [email-masked]
> Cc: [email-masked]
> 	This confuses me.  Are you saying that you would be more able to
> give feedback on someone you don't know if you knew what they might
> have to say about themselves?
> 
> 	I would think that - if you don't know somebody - you can't give
> feedback on them (and that is precisely as it should be).
> 
> --
> Eric
> 
> I try to give feedback on the NomCom lists of candidates.  For people I
> know, I can do this, for people I don't know well it's difficult.  It
> would help me if I could read some of the material they submitted with
> their acceptance of the nomination to see why they want the job, and
> their qualifications and experience.
>

---

From: Mary Barnes <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2013 15:22:03 -0600

Eric,

> precisely as it should be).
[MB] This then begs the question in my opinion as to how Nomcom can
evaluate nominees from the questionnaires then?

Also, As I noted in my previous response, even when you know someone
you likely don't know everything about what they have accomplished or
you have forgotten some things.  [/MB]

---

From: Eric Gray <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2013 21:31:58 +0000

Mary,

	There's a difference between evaluating someone based on what they said (as you
point out is part of the NomCom's job) and evaluating someone based on what somebody else
said about what they said.

	If - in the latter case - someone offering feedback based strictly on what a candidate
had to say about themselves was completely up-front about that, then the NomCom could try
to factor that in when considering the feedback.

	I don't think that it is a good idea to try to rely on people to do this, nor do I think it is 
completely obvious how someone on the NomCom could necessarily arrive at a really good
way to "factor that in."

	Your second point is certainly valid.  There is no doubt that a personal CV from each
candidate would help everyone.  So maybe we're just quibbling over exactly what sorts of
candidate responses it would be helpful to disclose.

	:-)
--
Eric

-----Original Message-----
From: Mary Barnes [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Wednesday, March 06, 2013 4:22 PM
To: Eric Gray
Cc: Bob Hinden; [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: Nomcom off in the wilderness: Transport AD
Importance: High

Eric,

On Wed, Mar 6, 2013 at 2:59 PM, Eric Gray <[email-masked]> wrote:
> Bob,
>
>         This confuses me.  Are you saying that you would be more able 
> to give feedback on someone you don't know if you knew what they might have to say about themselves?
>
>         I would think that - if you don't know somebody - you can't 
> give feedback on them (and that is precisely as it should be).
[MB] This then begs the question in my opinion as to how Nomcom can evaluate nominees from the questionnaires then?

Also, As I noted in my previous response, even when you know someone you likely don't know everything about what they have accomplished or you have forgotten some things.  [/MB]

---

From: John E Drake <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2013 21:29:18 +0000

Mary,

As a potential nominee I considered the questionnaire to be a barrier to entry and as a NomCom member I considered the questionnaire answers to be useless.  

Irrespectively Yours,

John

> Mary Barnes
> Sent: Wednesday, March 06, 2013 1:22 PM
> To: Eric Gray
> > I try to give feedback on the NomCom lists of candidates.  For people
> I know, I can do this, for people I don't know well it's difficult.  It

---

From: Bob Hinden <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2013 13:36:21 -0800

Eric,

> precisely as it should be).

If I don't recognize them by name (and we don't publish their pictures), I might remember something they did in a working group/plenary/etc. by reading their summary.  

Also, if they make statements about the future of the IETF that I agree with or don't agree with, I can provide feedback on that.

Bob

---

From: Eric Gray <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2013 21:37:34 +0000

Okay, thanks Bob.  This makes sense...

-----Original Message-----
From: Bob Hinden [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Wednesday, March 06, 2013 4:36 PM
To: Eric Gray
Cc: Bob Hinden; [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: Nomcom off in the wilderness: Transport AD
Importance: High

Eric,

On Mar 6, 2013, at 12:59 PM, Eric Gray wrote:

> Bob,
> 
> 	This confuses me.  Are you saying that you would be more able to give 
> feedback on someone you don't know if you knew what they might have to say about themselves?
> 

Bob

---

From: Mary Barnes <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2013 15:41:01 -0600

> completely obvious how someone on the NomCom could necessarily arrive at a really good
[MB] Honestly, as it is now, the context for feedback is often totally
unknown to the Nomcom.  I can't see that someone offering feedback
based on public input from the nominee is any less credible that the
information that Nomcom gets now.

My point is that nominees providing this information makes it easier
for someone providing input to provide concrete context and adequate
detail to add value to the process.  Folks do not remember everything
that a person has done.  They usually only remember the most recent
things.  The process is quite flawed IMHO right now in terms of the
quality and quantity of input that nomcom must rely on to make their
decisions.
[/MB]
> candidate responses it would be helpful to disclose.
[MB] Take a look at the position questionnaires:
https://www.ietf.org/group/nomcom/2012/iesg-questionnaire
If I were to post my responses that I provided to this year's nomcom,
I would only need to make some minor changes in terms of anonymizing
and abstracting a few of my comments.  We can decide where to draw the
line in terms of what sections to provide, as well. If anyone does
have lots of concerns about this, it would make me wonder exactly how
they are positioning themselves to the nomcom.
[/MB]

---

From: Henning Schulzrinne <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2013 16:45:19 -0500

For what it's worth, candidates in professional organizations (IEEE, ACM, say) routinely publish basic information about themselves, typically of two kinds:

* what have they done before (both within the organization as well as other roles)

* vision for their position and the organization itself

Both are typically space-limited (around 200 words, I think) to force focus and to avoid making this a "who can write a nicer autobiography" contest.

This is not sufficient and doesn't replace personal knowledge or one-on-one interviews, but allows a broader range of people to comment. IEEE and ACM have member votes, so the need is a bit different, but I don't think this is that unusual nor particularly burdensome.

Henning

---

From: Eric Gray <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2013 21:57:03 +0000

Henning,

	This is essentially what I meant in agree with Mary about including a personal CV.

	However, even in the ACM/IEEE cases, there is a pronounced tendency to go with
the better write-up than with necessarily the best candidate.  That's because practically
nobody actually knows the candidates. 

	 Also, the positions where this is done are not usually the sort of position that is 
likely to impact on the day-to-day job of the ACM/IEEE membership, even over the long
term - to the extent the effectiveness of an IESG candidate might.

	Still, on the whole, I agree that this sort of write up would be more helpful than not.

--
Eric

-----Original Message-----
From: Henning Schulzrinne [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Wednesday, March 06, 2013 4:45 PM
To: Eric Gray
Cc: Bob Hinden; [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: Nomcom off in the wilderness: Transport AD
Importance: High

Henning

On Mar 6, 2013, at 4:37 PM, Eric Gray wrote:

>> give feedback on someone you don't know if you knew what they might have to say about themselves?
>>

---

From: Stephen Farrell <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 06 Mar 2013 21:57:23 +0000

> I'm really, really against turning this into an election-like process

Speaking as someone who's filled in these things and both been
selected and not, but never been on nomcom, I'd be against making
'em public, so +1 to Melinda and others on that.

I think that'd lead to less honest/open answers as has been
pointed out. One example of that not noted so far is that I've
in the past told nomcom "pick the incumbent if he's re-upping"
and I think publishing responses would likely mean this would
either never be said or always be said and neither's as good as
it being said in private IMO.

That's just an example, I agree with pretty much all the
reasons folks have stated for not publishing these responses.

S.

---

From: Spencer Dawkins <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 06 Mar 2013 16:01:37 -0600

On 3/6/2013 3:11 PM, John C Klensin wrote:

On this specific point ...

> then cannot be revealed to the Nomcom.

I've seen at least one Nomcom questionnaire that fell into this 
category, so I's suggest that John's point is worth keeping in mind.

Spencer

---

From: Mary Barnes <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2013 16:38:55 -0600

On Wed, Mar 6, 2013 at 4:01 PM, Spencer Dawkins
<[email-masked]> wrote:
> I've seen at least one Nomcom questionnaire that fell into this category, so
> I's suggest that John's point is worth keeping in mind.
[MB] I think that we can evaluate the questionnaires and decide how
much of what is currently provided to Nomcom needs to be public.  Just
as there is a section where nominees can include information that
doesn't get shared with IAB, they could certainly do so with
information they don't want shared with the community.  And, again, my
suggestion was that this information only be available on the Nomcom
wiki as is the public list of nominees, as opposed to publishing on an
open website or mailing list.  [/MB]

---

From: Mary Barnes <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2013 16:39:32 -0600

---

From: Mary Barnes <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2013 16:46:23 -0600

> it being said in private IMO.
[MB]  As someone whose filled out these things way more times than I
want to admit and never been appointed, but who has chaired nomcom, I
think making the questionnaires (at least a portion thereof) would add
value to the process.  Personally, I would question the motives of
someone that didn't think at least a portion of the questionnaire
could be shared with the community.   I took a quick look at the
questionnaire I filled out for this year's nomcom and there's only a
couple comments way down in the questionnaire that I would need to
edit to feel comfortable with making the questionnaire available to
the community - I would need to generalize some things with specific
details. The questionnaire is not the only way one should be providing
input to the Nomcom, and one could certainly include the comment you
mention in a portion of the questionnaire that wouldn't get published
or send them an email. [/MB]

---

From: Sam Hartman <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 06 Mar 2013 18:14:31 -0500

>>>>> "Jari" == Jari Arkko <[email-masked]> writes:

    Jari> Sam, Thanks for raising this issue. The issue about what kind
    Jari> of candidates are suitable for the task.

    Jari> However, even if you asked us to not reply to your mail on the
    Jari> public list, I wanted to do it for one aspect. I have a
    Jari> suggestion that relates to who you are directing your
    Jari> criticism to. You've been a part of the nomination process,
    Jari> you know it is not easy.

    Jari> When it comes to feedback on candidates and the tasks, noncom
    Jari> does need your feedback. Please tell them what you think.

    Jari> But when it comes to the "off in the wilderness" part, I have
    Jari> a very strong opinion. Please do not take it out on the
    Jari> noncom, confirming bodies, or the process. I think the buck
    Jari> stops in this particular situation with the IESG, whose
    Jari> requirements they are following. Just like when the spec is
    Jari> wrong, you do not blame the vendor. 

Jari, I could not disagree more.  Evaluating community feedback on the
qualifications provided by the IESG is specifically the nomcom's
responsibility.  It's quite clear the buck stops with the nomcom in RFC
3777 not with the IESG.

I shall quote the related sections of the RFc for you:

      The nominating committee will be given the title of the positions
      to be reviewed and a brief summary of the desired expertise of the
      candidate that is nominated to fill each position.

...
   10. The Chair announces the open positions to be reviewed, the
       desired expertise provided by the IETF Executive Director, and
       the call for nominees.

...
       nomination must include the set of skills or expertise the
       nominator believes the nominee has that would be desirable.

...

   12. The nominating committee selects candidates based on its
       understanding of the IETF community's consensus of the
       qualifications required to fill the open positions.

       The intent of this rule is to ensure that the nominating
       committee consults with a broad base of the IETF community for
       input to its deliberations.  In particular, the nominating
       committee must determine if the desired expertise for the open
       positions matches its understanding of the qualifications desired
       by the IETF community.

...

   14. The nominating committee advises the confirming bodies of their
       candidates, specifying a single candidate for each open position
       and testifying as to how each candidate meets the qualifications
       of an open position.

(***note qualifications not expertise***)

       For each candidate, the testimony must include a brief statement
       of the qualifications for the position that is being filled,
       which may be exactly the expertise that was requested.  If the
       qualifications differ from the expertise originally requested a
       brief statement explaining the difference must be included.

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 07 Mar 2013 12:31:14 -0800

...

Sam,

Responding to this message of yours, from yesterday, based on the 
clarification you just sent...

I understand that clarification to mean that you believe RFC 3777 
authorizes Nomcom to formulate job requirements.  Hence, you believe a 
Nomcom errs if it operates from the view that it /must/ treat the IESG's 
job descriptions as mandated by the IESG, rather than merely being advisory.

Unfortunately I don't interpret RFC 3777 the way you do, or at least I 
think the current language permits the current operational model.

Above is the text you quoted that I think relevant.  (I read the 
remainder of the text you quoted as pertaining to more operational 
issues, such as matching and reporting, rather than "formulating".)

The wiggle-room in RFC 3777 is in the first bit of text, above, 
containing the word "desired", since that's a word that isn't as strong 
as "required".  However note that none of the language, above or 
elsewhere in RFC 3777 explicitly assigns to Nomcom the authority to 
define the requirements for an AD job.

So we have

      a) an explicit statement that has the IESG saying what it wants,

      b) no statement saying that Nomcom decides what it thinks the IESG 
needs, and

      c) 18 years of practice of Nomcoms deferring to the IESG, for 
definition of job requirements.

I certainly agree that we have a practical problem with the current job 
requirements, but I see the current authority for changing this as 
residing with the IESG.  Or IETF consensus (of course.)

d/

---

From: Ted Hardie <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 7 Mar 2013 12:52:49 -0800

Howdy,

Some text in-line.

On Thu, Mar 7, 2013 at 12:31 PM, Dave Crocker <[email-masked]> wrote:
> I understand that clarification to mean that you believe RFC 3777 authorizes
> Nomcom to formulate job requirements.  Hence, you believe a Nomcom errs if
> it operates from the view that it /must/ treat the IESG's job descriptions
> as mandated by the IESG, rather than merely being advisory.
>
> Unfortunately I don't interpret RFC 3777 the way you do, or at least I think
> the current language permits the current operational model.
>
I agree that the current language permits the current operational model, because
it leaves it up to the NomCom to determine how to derive IETF
community consensus;
it can believe the IESG is right, as it does now.

But it is not required to do so by my reading of RFC 3777.  And I
don't event think
that's the default.   That is actually pretty much spelled out in section 12:

To summarize:  the nominating committee selects candidates
based on *community consensus of the qualifications required*, and it should
consult *broadly* to determine if the desired expertise matches its
understanding.
And the document is quite clear that its intent is to get broad community input
rather than just the view of the incumbents.

That's a fairly long winded way of saying I think Sam is right, but
I'm afraid I'm
about to make it a bit longer.  One of the reasons for retaining a NomCom
style selection rather than bootstrapping with it and then letting the bodies
self-select afterwards is that the incumbents' understanding of what's needed
can drift from the community's view.   The NomCom is the volunteer body
charged with testing for that and reacting.  Its view, not the
incumbents' views,
should be the deciding ones.

Note:  I've served on confirming bodies, but not the NomCom, so I am not
speaking from personal experience.

regards,

Ted Hardie

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 07 Mar 2013 13:02:09 -0800

>         qualifications required to fill the open positions.

You seem to have misunderstood the Nomcom operational model that I 
described:  The Nomcoms that I've been on recently felt that the IESG's 
job descriptions were rigid requirements; the Nomcom's did not believe 
that the Nomcom was the ultimate arbitrator.

As for the language in #12, which assigns ultimate authority to the 
community, I'll claim that it has no practical utility, absent an 
explicit effort to circulate specific job descriptions to the community 
and then seek explicit IETF consensus for it; this hasn't been done in 
20 years...

I understand the legal readings you and Sam H. are offering, but they 
don't match the lack of freedom felt by the Nomcoms I've been on.

Given Sam W's comments, at the least we have a degree of ambiguity in 
the interpretation across different Nomcoms.  Since this is a strategic 
issue, it's too important to leave that ambiguous, IMO.

d/

---

From: Andrew Sullivan <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 7 Mar 2013 16:28:32 -0500

On Thu, Mar 07, 2013 at 01:02:09PM -0800, Dave Crocker wrote:
> in the interpretation across different Nomcoms.  Since this is a
> strategic issue, it's too important to leave that ambiguous, IMO.

Why?  It seems to me that merely having drawn attention to these bits
of RFC 3777 provides a hint to future nomcoms that they may not be so
bound as they think.  Why isn't that enough?  I suppose it may be too
late for this year, but this fact will surely be remembered by some
eligible volunteers next year, and they can use the apparent power
they already have to modify the stance the Nomcom takes.  No?

The alternative seems, to me, to be yet another IETF meta-discussion.
These seem inevitably to be giant time-holes into which we throw our
most engaged participants, and in this case we'd be doing it where the
RFC and the existing practice don't align well.  Why not just realign
to what the text says?

Best,

A

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
[email-masked]

---

From: "Joel M. Halpern" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 07 Mar 2013 16:56:58 -0500

I read 3777 as somewhere in between, with some important caveats.
As I understand the rules and practice of the game we are playing:

The IESG (and the IAB and IAOC) specify what they want to see (their job 
requirements).
The nomcom collects those, and community input.  Community input is 
explicitly asked for both on candidates, positions, and general 
operational behaviors.  This includes community feedback on the job that 
needs to be done.
The nomcom selects candidates.
The nomcom tells the confirming body who the candidates are, what the 
nomcom felt the requirements were and why, and how the candidate meets 
the requirements.
the confirming body reaches its conclusion, and responds.

Do note that while the nomcom is free to interpret the job requirements, 
they are NOT free to redefine the job.  If asked for a Security AD, they 
can not appoint an extra applications AD.  Even i the community input 
strongly led them to conclude that is what is needed.

One of the interesting things is that the nomcom does not in practice 
have a way to tell the community exactly what it decided the job 
requirements are.  I say this because the explanation of how the 
requirements were interpreted is often tied in with the available and 
selected candidates and their qualifications, which must not be 
discussed with the community.  And the confirming body can not tell the 
community what it did with the nomcom statements.

Yours, through my narrow lenses,
Joel

---

From: Sam Hartman <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 07 Mar 2013 17:10:43 -0500

>>>>> "Ted" == Ted Hardie <[email-masked]> writes:

    Ted> I agree that the current language permits the current
    Ted> operational model, because it leaves it up to the NomCom to
    Ted> determine how to derive IETF community consensus; it can
    Ted> believe the IESG is right, 

Ted, up to here we're in agreement.

    Ted> as it does now.

I haven't seen evidence of this (nor evidence against; I have no idea
what the nomcom thinks.)  I realize you may have seen more information
than is public.

I also agree with dave C that this issue is strategic. I believe that
having this be clear would be valuable.

---

From: Eric Gray <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 7 Mar 2013 22:27:28 +0000

Absolutely agree with Joel here.

My experience with participating in a NomCom is limited to just one time, but that one experience 
left some pretty deep scars.  :-)

One of them was from the amount of time spent in trying to determine not just what the job was for 
each prospective candidate, but what the "job" was for the complete slate.

This is - IMO - the single biggest reason to prefer to "re-up" every AD if they're all willing to take one
more for the team.  Every person who isn't going to be on the next IESG represents a lost perspective
that may or may not be part of the Area responsibility for that AD, but may very well be critical for 
the IESG as a whole.

In addition to trying to guess what the "talent-set" requirement is for a complete slate, the NomCom
also has to try to figure out balance on a lot of different dimensions.  Company-mix, representation
by regions, extra skills and/or tools each AD might bring to the table, etc.

In fact, having worked through this, the single biggest dread a NomCom might face is the potential
that the IAB may decide to exercise a line-item veto on nominated candidates - either forcing the
NomCom to effectively start over, or giving the NomCom a clear indication that their effort to come 
up with a balanced slate was a complete waste of time.

So, in addition to not being able to re-define the basic task of each AD, a NomCom cannot possibly 
have the time to try, with the already heavy burden of other considerations that need to be taken
into account and the tight time schedule defined for them.

The NomCom has a very hard job.  We need to try to keep that in mind when we decide to second 
guess their decisions and how they made them.

--
Eric

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Joel M. Halpern
Sent: Thursday, March 07, 2013 4:57 PM
To: Andrew Sullivan
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: Nomcom is responsible for IESG qualifications

The IESG (and the IAB and IAOC) specify what they want to see (their job requirements).
The nomcom collects those, and community input.  Community input is explicitly asked for both on candidates, positions, and general operational behaviors.  This includes community feedback on the job that needs to be done.
The nomcom selects candidates.
The nomcom tells the confirming body who the candidates are, what the nomcom felt the requirements were and why, and how the candidate meets the requirements.
the confirming body reaches its conclusion, and responds.

Do note that while the nomcom is free to interpret the job requirements, they are NOT free to redefine the job.  If asked for a Security AD, they can not appoint an extra applications AD.  Even i the community input strongly led them to conclude that is what is needed.

One of the interesting things is that the nomcom does not in practice have a way to tell the community exactly what it decided the job requirements are.  I say this because the explanation of how the requirements were interpreted is often tied in with the available and selected candidates and their qualifications, which must not be discussed with the community.  And the confirming body can not tell the community what it did with the nomcom statements.

---

From: S Moonesamy <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 07 Mar 2013 14:50:24 -0800

Hi Eric,
At 14:27 07-03-2013, Eric Gray wrote:
>In fact, having worked through this, the single biggest dread a 
>NomCom might face is the potential that the IAB may decide to 
>exercise a line-item veto on nominated candidates - either forcing 
>the NomCom to effectively start over, or giving the NomCom a clear 
>indication that their effort to come up with a balanced slate was a 
>complete waste of time.

The question that I might ask is what is a path forward for Bullet 14 
of Section 5 of RFC 3777.

Regards,
S. Moonesamy

---

From: Ted Hardie <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 7 Mar 2013 15:01:35 -0800

On Thu, Mar 7, 2013 at 1:56 PM, Joel M. Halpern <[email-masked]> wrote:

> they are NOT free to redefine the job.  If asked for a Security AD, they can
> not appoint an extra applications AD.  Even i the community input strongly
> led them to conclude that is what is needed.
>

This is explicit in RFC 3777:

"The nominating committee does not select the open positions to be
      reviewed; it is instructed as to which positions to review."

It cannot decide not to review a specific position ("We're not reviewing the IAB
this year") nor can it decide to review a different AD set ("We're
going to re-do last
year's slots  as well as this years").  So I guess we agree, but it's not really
to the point being made.

> One of the interesting things is that the nomcom does not in practice have a
> way to tell the community exactly what it decided the job requirements are.

Why is the Nomcom report not a mechanism to do this?

regards,

Ted Hardie

---

From: Spencer Dawkins <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 07 Mar 2013 17:23:45 -0600

> Why is the Nomcom report not a mechanism to do this?

Ted,

I just sent Joel a note about this privately, but since you mention it ...

I think part of the reason may be that if there's a gap between the job 
description that the willing nominees saw before they said they were 
willing to be considered and the job description that the Nomcom 
actually used, you might not end up with the same willing nominees in 
both cases. (*)

So the Nomcom report at the first IETF meeting of the year would be a 
good place to talk about what got changed, but too late for nominees who 
were a better match for the Nomcom's description than the initial 
description to agree to be considered.

Thanks,

Spencer (**)

(*) Ideally, you end up with better willing nominees if they know the 
description Nomcom will be using

(**) I've been on one Nomcom as IAB liaison, and never as a voting member

---

From: Michael StJohns <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 07 Mar 2013 19:05:50 -0500

>up with a balanced slate was a complete waste of time.

I'm still trying to figure out where this "requirement" came from.  It seems to pop up in each and every nomcom, but is no where in RFC3777.

The phrase in 3777 that is appropriate is:

>The confirming body may reject individual candidates, in which
>         case the nominating committee must select alternate candidates
>         for the rejected candidates.

Please note NOT an alternate slate, but an alternate candidate or candidates.  Confirmation is done per nominee, NOT per slate.   The Nomcom MAY NOT start over if one of its candidates is rejected.  It MAY NOT pull the slate back.

And this "line item veto" is the only veto available to the confirming body.

Unfortunately, this phrase follows one of the more useless sections which has (my opinion) caused no end of harm:

>If some or none of the candidates submitted to a confirming
>         body are confirmed, the confirming body should communicate with
>         the nominating committee both to explain the reason why all the
>         candidates were not confirmed and to understand the nominating
>         committee's rationale for its candidates.

The confirming body does not have a reason or reasons for why a candidate is rejected, it has a vote or result rejecting that candidate.  Individual members of the confirming body have reasons, some or all of which they may or may not care to state.  The only thing the Nomcom should infer is that the confirming body (or a sufficient portion thereof) did not agree with the nomcom as to the suitability of that specific candidate for that specific position and it should then try again.  To put it succinctly, it's not the process it's the person - the nomcom didn't do anything wrong, they just came to a conclusion that the confirming body couldn't support and the Nomcom should just move on to the next fully qualified candidate for that position.

The nominations and confirmation process is not and should not be a negotiation between the Nomcom and a confirming body.

The Nomcom shouldn't spend it's time trying to craft the perfect slate of candidates.  It needs to put good people in each of the spots, and if you need to sacrifice balance to attain that, then you sacrifice balance and move on.  In fact balance should only come into play when you have two fully qualified people for a slot where it may make sense to take the lesser (but still fully qualified) candidate to "balance" the slate.

The Nomcom has a hard job - but it needs to do the job one position at a time and not make its job harder.  Pick the best qualified people and move on.  

I say this as a former Nomcom member, former Nomcom Chair and former Nomcom past-chair.

Mike

ps -

The difference between a engineer and a bureaucrat is that the engineer takes large insolvable problems and breaks them down into solvable pieces, while the bureaucrat takes solvable problems and combines them into large insolvable masses.  Each and every position to be filled is in someways a solvable problem, but trying to find the absolute perfect combination of people (for some value of perfect) is possibly close to intractable.

---

From: Mary Barnes <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 7 Mar 2013 18:54:56 -0600

On Thu, Mar 7, 2013 at 5:23 PM, Spencer Dawkins
<[email-masked]> wrote:
>>> have a
> description that the willing nominees saw before they said they were willing
> to be considered and the job description that the Nomcom actually used, you
> might not end up with the same willing nominees in both cases. (*)
>
> So the Nomcom report at the first IETF meeting of the year would be a good
> place to talk about what got changed, but too late for nominees who were a
> better match for the Nomcom's description than the initial description to
> agree to be considered.
[MB] Personally, I don't think the .ppts at the plenary should be the
only "Nomcom report".  It's really hard to tease things out from
bullet points.  Per my earlier note, I believe the community should
expect that the nomcom chair produce a written report in a form
similar to what had been done previously - e.g., 2009-2010 and
2008-2009 were the last two I am aware of.  That would allow the
community to read the report and discuss things rather than make
assumptions about bullet points during a live meeting. [/MB]

---

From: Sam Hartman <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 07 Mar 2013 21:39:38 -0500

>>>>> "Michael" == Michael StJohns <[email-masked]> writes:

> dread a NomCom might face is the potential that the IAB may
> decide to exercise a line-item veto on nominated candidates
> - either forcing the NomCom to effectively start over, or
> giving the NomCom a clear indication that their effort to
> come up with a balanced slate was a complete waste of time.

    Michael> I'm still trying to figure out where this "requirement"
    Michael> came from.  It seems to pop up in each and every nomcom,
    Michael> but is no where in RFC3777.

I think it comes from the IAB.
I was on the IESG and the IAB was asked to confirm some candidates
before others (I forget the reason).
The IAB declined because they wanted to evaluate the slate as a whole.

When I was on the nomcom I believe that we got the message from the IAB
that wee needed to consider the slate as a whole and from the ISOC BOT
that we needed to consider issues such as diversity slate-wide.
    Michael> The confirming body does not have a reason or reasons for
    Michael> why a candidate is rejected, it has a vote or result
    Michael> rejecting that candidate.  Individual members of the
    Michael> confirming body have reasons, some or all of which they may
    Michael> or may not care to state.  The only thing the Nomcom should
    Michael> infer is that the confirming body (or a sufficient portion
    Michael> thereof) did not agree with the nomcom as to the
    Michael> suitability of that specific candidate for that specific
    Michael> position and it should then try again.  To put it
    Michael> succinctly, it's not the process it's the person - the
    Michael> nomcom didn't do anything wrong, they just came to a
    Michael> conclusion that the confirming body couldn't support and
    Michael> the Nomcom should just move on to the next fully qualified
    Michael> candidate for that position.

I was on a noncom involving a rejection of a candidate.  We actually did
get a reason from the confirming body and it was quite helpful in us
knowing how to respond to the confirming body's concern.
I would imagine that as a matter of process the confirming body agreed
what reason we'd be given.

I do understand there may be cases where there is no clear reason.
However it happens to be false in a running code sense that the
confirming body never has a reason.

---

From: Spencer Dawkins <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 07 Mar 2013 21:21:36 -0600

> assumptions about bullet points during a live meeting. [/MB]

Mary, I agree. I'd like to see a return to

http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-barnes-nomcom-report-2009-00

and

http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-halpern-nomcom-report-00

(especially since both of these reports talked about issues we 
encountered this Nomcom cycle :-)

Spencer

---

From: Eric Gray <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 8 Mar 2013 19:15:28 +0000

Mike,

                Notwithstanding your greater direct NomCom experience, it seems clear that our understanding
of both RFC 3777 and actual practice differs.

--
Eric

From: Michael StJohns [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Thursday, March 07, 2013 7:06 PM
To: Eric Gray; [email-masked]
Subject: RE: Nomcom is responsible for IESG qualifications
Importance: High

The confirming body may

reject individual candidates, in which

         case the nominating

committee must select alternate candidates

         for the rejected

candidates.

If some or none of

the candidates submitted to a confirming

         body are confirmed, the

confirming body should communicate with

         the nominating committee

both to explain the reason why all the

         candidates were not

confirmed and to understand the nominating

         committee's rationale

for its candidates.

Mike

ps -

---

From: Michael StJohns <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 08 Mar 2013 14:56:40 -0500

>of both RFC 3777 and actual practice differs.

Yup.  And I think I found someone to blame.  Joel (in his Nomcom report) mentions a negotiation and agreement with the IAB to confirm or reject the slate rather than individuals.  My guess is that the oral history from that - wrong - agreement has continued down the line  (via the IAB and Past Chairs) to the current day on both sides of the aisle.

Please go back and review the bidding - especially the report done by Dondeti for his Nomcom.  At the end of it, look at the Issue 5 discussion.  It is clear that the "confirm the slate" interpretation and possible change to 3777 was considered and rejected.

The Nomcom has repeatedly fallen into this fallacy and has been aided and abetted by the IAB.  It needs to stop as it makes the actual process of filling positions many times harder.  I've been told privately that this isn't a proximate cause of the current set of Transport AD issues, but I've also been told privately that this shared delusion has caused much additional work with out much additional benefit.

Mike

---

From: Eric Gray <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 8 Mar 2013 20:05:31 +0000

Actually, Joel is not to blame for my understanding.  Sorry to say, I did not read his report.

My understanding comes - at least in part - from the oxymoronic "oral Traditions" written in an
Appendix in RFC 3777.

--
E

From: Michael StJohns [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Friday, March 08, 2013 2:57 PM
To: Eric Gray
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: RE: Nomcom is responsible for IESG qualifications
Importance: High

Mike,

Mike

--
Eric

From: Michael StJohns [ mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Thursday, March 07, 2013 7:06 PM
To: Eric Gray; [email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Nomcom is responsible for IESG qualifications
Importance: High

The confirming body

may

reject individual candidates, in

which

         case the

nominating

committee must select alternate

candidates

         for the

rejected

candidates.

If some or none

of

the candidates submitted to a

confirming

         body are confirmed,

the

confirming body should communicate

with

         the nominating

committee

both to explain the reason why all

the

         candidates were

not

confirmed and to understand the

nominating

         committee's

rationale

for its

candidates.

Mike

ps -

---

From: Michael StJohns <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 08 Mar 2013 16:19:34 -0500

At 03:05 PM 3/8/2013, Eric Gray wrote:
>My understanding comes – at least in part – from the oxymoronic "oral Traditions" written in an 
>Appendix in RFC 3777.
> 
>--
>E

I've included that section in its entirety below.  Where in that section does it say that the confirming body must confirm or reject a slate?

Or if you mean "balance" - where in that section does it say the IESG balance is even desirable?  (Yup - the below specifically says "IAB"  balance because the members of the IAB are at-large members rather than assigned a specific role link the IESG members).

Or was there another section of 3777 that you might have gotten your impression from?

Mike

>
>Appendix A.  Oral Tradition
>
>
>
>
>
>   Over the years various nominating committees have learned through
>   oral tradition passed on by liaisons that there are certain
>   consistencies in the process and information considered during
>   deliberations.  Some items from that oral tradition are collected
>   here to facilitate its consideration by future nominating committees.
>
>   1.  It has been found that experience as an IETF Working Group Chair
>       or an IRTF Research Group Chair is helpful in giving a nominee
>       experience of what the job of an Area Director involves.  It also
>       helps a nominating committee judge the technical, people, and
>       process management skills of the nominee.
>
>   2.  No person should serve both on the IAB and as an Area Director,
>       except the IETF Chair whose roles as an IAB member and Area
>       Director of the General Area are set out elsewhere.
>
>   3.  The strength of the IAB is found in part in the balance of the
>       demographics of its members (e.g., national distribution, years
>       of experience, gender, etc.), the combined skill set of its
>       members, and the combined sectors (e.g., industry, academia,
>       etc.) represented by its members.
>
>   4.  There are no term limits explicitly because the issue of
>       continuity versus turnover should be evaluated each year
>       according to the expectations of the IETF community, as it is
>       understood by each nominating committee.
>
>   5.  The number of nominating committee members with the same primary
>       affiliation is limited in order to avoid the appearance of
>       improper bias in choosing the leadership of the IETF.  Rather
>       than defining precise rules for how to define "affiliation", the
>       IETF community depends on the honor and integrity of the
>       participants to make the process work.

>To: Eric Gray; <mailto:[email-masked]>[email-masked]

---

From: Eric Gray <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 8 Mar 2013 21:45:12 +0000

Mostly referring to balance, as the text is very close to what I said earlier.

With the IESG, there are other considerations, of course - but balance is one
of them. Going into this in detail on a public discussion list is not something I
plan to do however.  Suffice it to say that there are several forms of balance
that go into it - some having to do with the result and others having to do with
the process.

And balance argues for confirmation of the list either as a slate, or as a process
wherein the confirming body needs to be brought more closely into NomCom
deliberations.

Hence - negotiation.  Reasonable people can always negotiate.

We could go back and forth like this all day.  I don't see why we need to do so,
as it is IMO sufficient to agree that we don't read the RFC the same way, or
have the same impressions about how things should (or do) work.

--
E

From: Michael StJohns [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Friday, March 08, 2013 4:20 PM
To: Eric Gray
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: RE: Nomcom is responsible for IESG qualifications
Importance: High

--
E

Mike

   Over the years various nominating committees have learned

through

   consistencies in the process and information considered

during

   deliberations.  Some items from that oral tradition are

collected

   here to facilitate its consideration by future nominating

committees.

   1.  It has been found that experience as an IETF

Working Group Chair

       or an IRTF Research Group Chair is

helpful in giving a nominee

       experience of what the job of an

Area Director involves.  It also

       helps a nominating committee judge

the technical, people, and

       process management skills of the

nominee.

   2.  No person should serve both on the IAB and as an

Area Director,

       except the IETF Chair whose roles as

an IAB member and Area

       Director of the General Area are set

out elsewhere.

   3.  The strength of the IAB is found in part in the

balance of the

       demographics of its members (e.g.,

national distribution, years

       of experience, gender, etc.), the

combined skill set of its

       members, and the combined sectors

(e.g., industry, academia,

   4.  There are no term limits explicitly because the

issue of

       continuity versus turnover should be

evaluated each year

       according to the expectations of the

IETF community, as it is

       understood by each nominating

committee.

   5.  The number of nominating committee members with the

same primary

       affiliation is limited in order to

avoid the appearance of

       improper bias in choosing the

leadership of the IETF.  Rather

       than defining precise rules for how

to define "affiliation", the

       IETF community depends on the honor

and integrity of the

       participants to make the process

work.

From: Michael StJohns [ mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Friday, March 08, 2013 2:57 PM
To: Eric Gray
Cc: [email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Nomcom is responsible for IESG qualifications
Importance: High

Mike,

Mike

--
Eric

From: Michael StJohns [ <mailto:[email-masked]> mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Thursday, March 07, 2013 7:06 PM
To: Eric Gray; [email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Nomcom is responsible for IESG qualifications
Importance: High

The confirming

body

may

reject individual candidates,

in

which

         case

the

nominating

committee must select

alternate

candidates

         for

the

rejected

candidates.

If some or none

of

the candidates submitted to

a

confirming

         body are

confirmed,

the

confirming body should

communicate

with

         the

nominating

committee

both to explain the reason why

all

the

         candidates

were

not

confirmed and to understand

the

nominating

committee's

rationale

for its

candidates.

Mike

ps -

---

From: Jari Arkko <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 8 Mar 2013 18:57:32 -0500

FWIW, I do believe that noncoms may decide for themselves what the final requirements are for specific positions. This is true in this case as well. The IESG has a role to send the starting point for these requirements, the desired expertise. (But it is possible that the nomcom does not see a need to change what the input said, which may help explain what Dave has seen.)

I am sorry that I was unclear in my e-mail, and the note that we sent also did not clearly point this out. Thank you Sam for bringing that up. Nothing we said should be interpreted as taking away from the tasks that the nomcom process has. Or as an attempt to affect this year's process in any way, unless the nomcom asks us to revise our requirements.

However, I still believe that if there is a problem in the requirements, it was originated in the desired expertise list from the IESG. Also, while the nomcom decides the requirements for specific positions, other changes (e.g., some change in the setup of areas) are within IESG's role to make, if necessary. For these reasons I believe a community discussion is very useful. Obviously, whatever results we may come up with would be subject to (current or future) nomcom's process of evaluating the input it gets from the IESG.

Jari

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 08 Mar 2013 19:10:49 -0800

On 3/8/2013 3:57 PM, Jari Arkko wrote:
> FWIW, I do believe that noncoms may decide for themselves what the
> final requirements are for specific positions. This is true in this
> case as well. The IESG has a role to send the starting point for
> these requirements, the desired expertise. (But it is possible that
> the nomcom does not see a need to change what the input said, which
> may help explain what Dave has seen.)

No.  I've been quite explicit about the point I was making and there 
seems to be a pattern in this thread of different people re-interpreting 
it to mean something else.

Of the 4 nomcoms I've been on, more than one felt that the criteria 
should be revised.

      NONE OF THEM BELIEVED THEY HAD THE AUTHORITY.

"Not having the authority" is fundamentally different from "not seeing a 
need to change".

 From one Nomcom to the next, the sense of authority and obligation for 
a Nomcom should be consistent.  What a Nomcom does with that will (and 
probably should) vary enormously, of course, but they should all work 
from a common understanding of their charter.

>  Also, while the nomcom decides the requirements for
> specific positions,

Again:  that's nice, simple, clear language, but it does not reflect 
what some Nomcoms have believed was their charter.

We should revise the language to make authorities and responsibilities 
far more clear.

As I explained in an earlier posting, I see a reasonable reading of the 
current text as /not/ assigning the authority to the Nomcom.  It's fine 
that other read it differently, but that's not the point.

It should require really creative mis-reading to get an interpretation 
that differs from everyone else.

d/

---

From: Toerless Eckert <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 8 Mar 2013 19:53:46 -0800

> from a common understanding of their charter.

I was told it was intentional not to maintain institutional memory
across consecutive nomcoms. Practically speaking there is of course
some institutional memory through chair, prior chair and advisors.

Creating more institutional memory through documentation would of
course provide a better community insight into the process evolution.

Past NomCom reports are a way to provide sugestions for following NomComs,
but so far they look to me mostly like starting off at 0, and not
trying to incrementally "improve". Which means that the work of each
consecutive nomcom to take them into account would increase.

And a 3777bis of course would provide direct community input into the
process evolution.

Cheers
    Toerless

-- 
---
Toerless Eckert, [email-masked]
Cisco NSSTG Systems & Technology Architecture
SDN: Let me play with the network, mommy!

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 09 Mar 2013 10:11:37 -0500

--On Friday, March 08, 2013 18:57 -0500 Jari Arkko
<[email-masked]> wrote:

> FWIW, I do believe that noncoms may decide for themselves what
> the final requirements are for specific positions. This is
> true in this case as well. The IESG has a role to send the
> starting point for these requirements, the desired expertise.
> (But it is possible that the nomcom does not see a need to
> change what the input said, which may help explain what Dave
> has seen.)
>...

I agree with Jari's note (the part I didn't quote as well), but
want to make three suggestions (mixing threads a bit):

(1) A continued debate about the limits to job descriptions and
suggestions or mandates about requirements doesn't help anyone
right now.  I can't imagine the current nomcom feels that it is
so lacking in input on the subject that another note on the IETF
list will help.  And, if the community believes that there is
either ambiguity or that the current rules, whatever they are,
are wrong, I hope everyone agrees that the way to address that
is to create a draft with clarified or different rules and see
if it gets community consensus.

(2) I can't and won't speak to what has happened in any
particular year, but at least part of the IAB's shift to "give
us a slate" is a consequence of Nomcoms choosing to move people
between areas.   That can create a race condition among
candidates qualified for any given position.  To the extent to
which the IAB has concerns about balances of various sorts on
the IESG -- such as overrepresentation of one particular country
or various diversity issues-- there is no plausible way to look
at those questions without doing so on a slate.  The
specifications don't prevent the IAB from considering those
criteria.  As with the above, it is probably too late for this
year and those who feel that the IAB should be more constrained
(or who feel the the options should be clarified so they don't
come up again) should, IMO, probably be writing drafts rather
than seeing if their positions become more persuasive if
repeated enough times.

(3) People agree to be candidates for various positions with a
certain expectation of privacy based on the rules in effect when
the call for candidates is issued.  The community can to change
the rules again.  Doing so should come with the understanding
that such changes may change the profile of those who are
willing to volunteer.  But changing the rules mid-process,
whether by asking people to disclose questionnaires (and
inevitably putting those who don't to explain why not, whether
the comments in them are formally confidential or not) or
getting into public discussions about qualifications for a
position while that position is under active consideration by
the Nomcom (not because the qualifications should be an issue
but because, once the candidate list is known, comments about
qualifications are comments about candidates unless everyone is
hyper-careful about what they say, how they respond to what
others say, and what inferences they draw.  It may be that we
should change our process to allow (or require) Nomcoms to
conduct public fact-finding discussions about qualifications and
other considerations before issuing the formal call for
candidates.   At the risk of repeating myself, those who like
either that idea or changing (or clarifying) the confidentiality
rules should probably be writing drafts.

thanks,
   john

---

From: Sam Hartman <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 09 Mar 2013 10:31:56 -0500

>>>>> "John" == John C Klensin <[email-masked]> writes:
    John> confidential or not) or getting into public discussions about
    John> qualifications for a position while that position is under
    John> active consideration by the Nomcom (not because the
    John> qualifications should be an issue but because, once the
    John> candidate list is known, comments about qualifications are
    John> comments about candidates unless everyone is hyper-careful
    John> about what they say, how they respond to what others say, and
    John> what inferences they draw.  

John, I agree with what you say and what Jari said--both the part you
quoted and the rest of his note.  However, I think the part of your note
above is a bit unclear. I realize you and I have been having side
discussions about this issue for a few days now, but I suspect the IETf
list may not be able to follow what you wrote above, because I had
significantly difficulty the first time you explained it to me.

When you engage in a discussion of qualifications while there is an open
position, you very quickly force others to either abandon the discussion
or to make comments that expose information about how they feel about
candidates.
Let's take an example that happened here.

Joe Touch said something that roughly boiled down to he didn't want to
see an AD who required a tutorial in basic networking knowledge.  I felt
that wasn't a useful place to take the discussion because I feel that
the candidates in question don't need such a tutorial.
I have a number of options:

1) I can say that. However, if someone out there does feel that we have
candidates who should be disqualified for this reason, they're now in a
really bad position. They either need to speak up and thus disclose
information about their evaluation of candidates or stay silent in which
case the discussion passes them by and pushes people out of the
discussion.

2) I could take a page from consensus-building techniques and say "Joe,
I'm confused; it's not obvious to me which candidates need such a
tutorial. Who are you thinking of?" That would actually be a great
approach to try and understand where Joe's coming from if there weren't
confidentiality involved. It's absolutely the wrong answer here because
it puts Joe in a really bad position.

3) I can ignore the discussion. However if a lot of people do this, we
end up focusing time in the discussion on issues that we don't have
community interest in, only because we're excluding a lot of community
members from expressing that.

Similar examples are easy to find.
my conclusion is that you basically cannot discuss requirements for an
open position while it's open and get meaningful results.

I look forward to the discussion of future years. I hope that who ever
is moderating that discussion is very careful to close down any attempts
to bring it to a discussion of this year or what this year's nomcom
should do.  In my opinion, people who have opinions about that should contact the
nomcom and iab ([email-masked] and [email-masked]).

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 09 Mar 2013 13:16:12 -0500

--On Saturday, March 09, 2013 10:31 -0500 Sam Hartman
<[email-masked]> wrote:

>     John> confidential or not) or getting into public
> discussions about     John> qualifications for a position
> while that position is under     John> active consideration by
> the Nomcom (not because the     John> qualifications should be
>...
> John, I agree with what you say and what Jari said--both the
> part you quoted and the rest of his note.  However, I think
> the part of your note above is a bit unclear. I realize you
> and I have been having side discussions about this issue for a
> few days now, but I suspect the IETf list may not be able to
> follow what you wrote above, because I had significantly
> difficulty the first time you explained it to me.
> 
> When you engage in a discussion of qualifications while there
> is an open position, you very quickly force others to either
> abandon the discussion or to make comments that expose
> information about how they feel about candidates.
>...

Sam,

Yes, that is exactly correct.  I didn't say more because I'm
all-too-familiar with people not reading my longer notes and
thought writing in a little less detail might be a good
tradeoff.  Thank you for the example -- at least IMO, it
illustrates the problem very well and, as you say, it isn't hard
to come up with others.

> my conclusion is that you basically cannot discuss
> requirements for an open position while it's open and get
> meaningful results.
> 
> I look forward to the discussion of future years. I hope that
> who ever is moderating that discussion is very careful to
> close down any attempts to bring it to a discussion of this
> year or what this year's nomcom should do.  In my opinion,
> people who have opinions about that should contact the nomcom
> and iab ([email-masked] and [email-masked]).

For whatever it is worth, this is yet another part of the
argument for Nomcom reports that are well-thought-out, careful
about confidentiality, and that, ideally, pose questions and
alternatives for the community to think about in public and
defines a foundation for discussing them. 

thanks again,
   john

---

From: Benoit Claise <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 09 Mar 2013 13:46:12 -0500

> just because one nomcom did a bad job (and I agree they did).
I've puzzled by this statement "nomcom did a bad job".
How could we, people outside of noncom, know that they did a bad job? 
They are the only ones who have all the information, all the variables 
in the equation. We don't. So I believe that, at this stage, we can't 
make that assertion.
Being a positive person, I (want to) trust them.

Regards, Benoit

---

From: joel jaeggli <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 09 Mar 2013 13:59:16 -0500

> How could we, people outside of noncom, know that they did a bad job?
What we know is that it hasn't produced a AD that has been approved by 
the IAB. It's premature at the very minimum and imho probably 
inappropriate to start assigning blame.

---

From: Eric Gray <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2013 12:48:19 +0000

Dave,

	What you say is reasonable, but may not be practically applicable.

	For example, with folks like yourself who know a great deal about the inner
workings of IESG, IAB, etc. - as well as knowing many (if not most) of the people who
might reasonably be expected to show up as nominees - it is quite possible to argue 
the merit of a particular nomination choice independent of the specific requirements
handed to the NomCom.

	Does that mean that the result would be that the NomCom would tell the IAB,
IESG, etc. that they decided to "change" the requirements?  I think not.

	On the other hand, because of the selection process we use for the NomCom,
it would be quite possible to end up with a NomCom that has nobody, among the voting
members, that has a degree of understanding similar to your own.  In that case, giving
anyone on such a NomCom the impression that they have any responsibility to review
and perhaps alter the requirements given to them would possibly be a serious error.

	One of the factors that can lead to different interpretations of the guidelines
RFC(s) for NomComs is the amount of experience the members collectively bring to the
table.  In a very real way, the potential for different interpretations that exists right
now is a feature - in this respect - rather than a bug.

	With the current possibility for interpretation, an experienced NomCom can
do better, while a less experienced NomCom can do the best they can with what they 
are given, and can get on their own - without feeling compelled to try to step outside of
the limits of their experience.

	I know that this may grate on some people's sense of how things should be 
done.  In no small part, this is likely because of a concern that some folks may take 
advantage of such loop-holes to push forward an agenda of their own.

	I think that concern is a bogey man, given the fact that the current NomCom
selection process tends to select sincere and conscientious people and that there are a
host of balances and correction points in the NomCom process.

--
Eric

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Dave Crocker
Sent: Friday, March 08, 2013 10:11 PM
To: Jari Arkko
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: Nomcom is responsible for IESG qualifications

On 3/8/2013 3:57 PM, Jari Arkko wrote:
> case as well. The IESG has a role to send the starting point for these 
> requirements, the desired expertise. (But it is possible that the 
> nomcom does not see a need to change what the input said, which may 
> help explain what Dave has seen.)

No.  I've been quite explicit about the point I was making and there seems to be a pattern in this thread of different people re-interpreting it to mean something else.

Of the 4 nomcoms I've been on, more than one felt that the criteria should be revised.

"Not having the authority" is fundamentally different from "not seeing a need to change".

 From one Nomcom to the next, the sense of authority and obligation for a Nomcom should be consistent.  What a Nomcom does with that will (and probably should) vary enormously, of course, but they should all work from a common understanding of their charter.

>  Also, while the nomcom decides the requirements for specific 
> positions,

Again:  that's nice, simple, clear language, but it does not reflect what some Nomcoms have believed was their charter.

We should revise the language to make authorities and responsibilities far more clear.

As I explained in an earlier posting, I see a reasonable reading of the current text as /not/ assigning the authority to the Nomcom.  It's fine that other read it differently, but that's not the point.

It should require really creative mis-reading to get an interpretation that differs from everyone else.

d/

---

From: Jari Arkko <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2013 13:49:46 -0400

Dave, all,

We talked about this in the Monday plenary. Obviously people have read or understood the situation in different ways. But that should not stop us from reaching a common understanding of the situation now that we realised we had read it differently. You indicated that you thought you saw consensus emerge on the list about the way that qualifications are determined. I am now attempting to see if the list believes this is how it should work:

The bodies (IESG, IAB, …) themselves provide desirable qualifications to the nominating committee. The nominating committee may, however, itself determine what the final requirements are for specific positions. As a part of this effort, the nominating committee needs to evaluate the qualifications that it got in critical light, as well as to call for input from the community on the qualifications.

However, the body for which persons are being searched is still responsible on how the work is organised. For instance, the IESG determines what areas there are, and therefore, what and how many area directors are needed.

(And again, this mail is just about a process clarification, not something that should affect current nomcom process, this has nothing to do with selecting specific persons this year, etc.)

Jari

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2013 14:27:45 -0400

On 3/13/2013 1:49 PM, Jari Arkko wrote:
> The bodies (IESG, IAB, …) themselves provide desirable qualifications
> to the nominating committee. The nominating committee may, however,
> itself determine what the final requirements are for specific
> positions. As a part of this effort, the nominating committee needs
> to evaluate the qualifications that it got in critical light, as well
> as to call for input from the community on the qualifications.
>
> However, the body for which persons are being searched is still
> responsible on how the work is organised. For instance, the IESG
> determines what areas there are, and therefore, what and how many
> area directors are needed.

Jari.

Thanks for sending this.

I think you've correctly described the dominant interpretation that 
developed in the discussion.

By way of testing whether I understand your text, here is a re-coding, 
meant to be simplistic and procedural:

    1. The body (and/or the controlling documents for the body) defines 
its slots (positions).  Nomcom fills the slots.

    2. The body offers its view of the requirements for these positions, 
but these are merely advisory to the work of Nomcom

    3. The community comments on the requirements for positions.

    4. Nomcom makes its own decision about the criteria it will use for 
selecting nominees; as such, it really is defining the /actual/ 
requirements for positions.

The task I think I agreed to, on Monday, was to formulate language 
changes to RFC 3777, to make this more clear.

Herewith:

>    7. Unless otherwise specified, the advice and consent model is used
...
>       2. The nominating committee selects candidates based on its
>          qualifications required and advises each confirming body of its
>          respective candidates.

In practical terms, Nomcom is not in a position to conduct an actual 
(formal) community-wide consensus process.  It can solicit comments and 
it can gauge those comments.  But to characterize this sequence as an 
"understanding of the IETF community's consensus" is unrealistic and 
counterproductive, in my view.

So I suggest:

       2. The nominating committee selects candidates based on its
          determination of the requirements for the job, synthesized
          from the desires expressed by the IAB, IESG or IAOC (as
          appropriate), desires express by the community, and from the
          nominating committee's own assessment; it then advises each
          confirming body of its respective candidates; the nominating
          committee shall provide supporting materials that cover its
          selections, including the final version of requirements that
          the nominating committee used when making its selections;
          these requirements shall be made public after nominees are
          confirmed.

Comments?

d/

---

From: Jari Arkko <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2013 14:34:02 -0400

> 
> By way of testing whether I understand your text, here is a re-coding, meant to be simplistic and procedural:
> 
>   1. The body (and/or the controlling documents for the body) defines its slots (positions).  Nomcom fills the slots.
> 
>   2. The body offers its view of the requirements for these positions, but these are merely advisory to the work of Nomcom
> 
>   4. Nomcom makes its own decision about the criteria it will use for selecting nominees; as such, it really is defining the /actual/ requirements for positions.

Agreed.

> 
> 
> The task I think I agreed to, on Monday, was to formulate language changes to RFC 3777, to make this more clear.
> 
> Herewith:
> 
> In practical terms, Nomcom is not in a position to conduct an actual (formal) community-wide consensus process.  It can solicit comments and it can gauge those comments.  But to characterize this sequence as an "understanding of the IETF community's consensus" is unrealistic and counterproductive, in my view.
> 
> So I suggest:
> 

I'm fine with that.

jari

---

From: Melinda Shore <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2013 10:45:11 -0800

> requirements for positions.

I think we need to acknowledge that the confirming body (IAB)
effectively has veto power over those criteria/requirements,
since it can reject candidates who were selected by evaluation
against those criteria.

Melinda

---

From: Scott Brim <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2013 14:46:50 -0400

>          these requirements shall be made public after nominees are

I'm not fine with your use of "requirements".  The thing is, there are
many "soft" requirements, i.e. the nomcom has a number considerations
that are important, but it must make tradeoffs.  Most alleged
requirements are not hard.

You could change "requirements" to "criteria".  Or perhaps "...
including the process the nominating committee used when making its
selections ...".  In any case calling everything the Nomcom takes into
consideration "requirements" will be confusing to future readers.

Scott

---

From: Michael StJohns <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2013 14:51:26 -0400

>         these requirements shall be made public after nominees are

Can the nomcom waive or otherwise ignore "objective" criteria such as "must have been a working group chair"?  (and lest someone claim that "must have congestion control expertise" is also an objective criteria - I will point out that the evaluation of that claim involves subjective judgement and the result can vary from evaluator to evaluator, as opposed to "must have been employed in a job which included "congestion control" in the job description for a minimum of 5 years is objective.).

And I'd still leave "understanding" rather than "determination"  in your re-phrasing to make it clear that the requirements must derive from the externally stated desires, wishes and hopes, rather than created whole cloth from the Nomcom's preferences.

Mike

---

From: Scott Brim <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2013 14:57:17 -0400

On 03/13/13 14:51, Michael StJohns allegedly wrote:
> Can the nomcom waive or otherwise ignore "objective" criteria such as "must have been a working group chair"?  

The confirming body still has control.

---

From: Spencer Dawkins <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2013 14:05:24 -0500

> since it can reject candidates who were selected by evaluation

Well, for what it's worth ... people willing to be considered would 
probably like to know what the description Nomcom uses really is, and so 
would people being asked to comment on willing nominees. As a member of 
one of the confirming bodies, I would like to know what Nomcom thinks 
the description is, when I'm considering candidates to confirm.

Spencer

p.s. For the brave souls who are still reading - my understanding of the 
process is that Nomcoms ask for feedback on willing nominees, and then 
get feedback on what the description should be as part of feedback on 
nominees. If you think nominees read position descriptions, Nomcoms 
might end up with willing nominees that more closely match the position 
description if the Nomcom collects feedback on the position description 
before providing it as part of a call for nominations.

I'm not suggesting two calls for feedback (one on the descriptions/needs 
of the position, and one on the willing nominees). But how you give 
potential nominees a the description they'll be considered against, 
without asking the community for feedback and then deciding what the 
position description is, and then asking for nominations, I couldn't say.

---

From: Michael StJohns <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2013 15:29:00 -0400

>The confirming body still has control.

I think so too.  Which then suggests that the requirements should be provided far in advance of the nominations, rather in conjunction with the nominations.  I think that surprising the confirming body with the requirements at the last moment could tend to lead to further disruptions in the process.

Mike

---

From: John Leslie <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2013 21:07:52 -0400

Dave Crocker <[email-masked]> wrote:
>    nominating committee's own assessment;

   I see several problems with this text:

1) It wanders from the current clear distinction between "desired
   expertise", determined by the body where the nominee will serve,
   and "IETF community's consensus of the qualifications required",
   determined by waving the right magic wand. ;^)

   These are separable, and deserve to be distinguished from each other.

2) The confirming body _does_ have a role here, which they frequently
   take seriously. IMHO, the confirming body has much better experience
   at determining "community consensus" than the NomCom -- but at the
   very least, it's a bad idea for them to be surprised by any change
   in the "desired expertise" at the point where names are presented
   to them. Thus:

>    it then advises each confirming body of its respective candidates;
>    the nominating committee shall provide supporting materials that
>    cover its selections, including the final version of requirements
>    that the nominating committee used when making its selections;

strikes me as too little, too late: the confirming body should learn
of any relaxing (least of all changes!) to the "desired expertise"
early in the process, and IMHO, should comment on or accept these
changes.

>    these requirements shall be made public after nominees are

   This seems too vague. I'd suggest we consider listing actual
"requirements" in a formal report posted to <ietf-announce>.

   (YMMV...)

--
John Leslie <[email-masked]>

---

From: James Galvin <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2013 12:47:17 -0400

-- On March 13, 2013 2:27:45 PM -0400 Dave Crocker <[email-masked]> 
wrote regarding Re: Consensus on the responsibility for qualifications? 
(Was: Re:	Nomcom is responsible for IESG qualifications) --

> By way of testing whether I understand your text, here is a
> re-coding, meant to be simplistic and procedural:
>
>     1. The body (and/or the controlling documents for the body)
> defines its slots (positions).  Nomcom fills the slots.
>
>     2. The body offers its view of the requirements for these
> positions, but these are merely advisory to the work of Nomcom
>
>     4. Nomcom makes its own decision about the criteria it will use
> for selecting nominees; as such, it really is defining the /actual/

I agree with this.

> >          qualifications required and advises each confirming body
> >          of its respective candidates.
>
> (formal) community-wide consensus process.  It can solicit comments
> and it can gauge those comments.  But to characterize this sequence
> as an "understanding of the IETF community's consensus" is
> unrealistic and counterproductive, in my view.
>
> So I suggest:
>

While I support your goal of wanting to clarify the language, I think 
your suggestion moves too far away from the intent of the original text.

The choice of the phrase "understanding of the IETF community's 
consensus" is deliberately ambiguous.  The NOMCOM really is the 
"end-of-the-road" in the system that identifies our leadership.  One 
overall principle in 3777 is that the NOMCOM is the final authority. 
It has a responsibility to do what it needs to do to get its job done, 
as long as that is not inconsistent with what is documented.

In my opinion, flexibility is important here.  We have, over time, made 
the process less flexible where we were concerned that the process was 
overreaching, but there is no example of that in this case.

The NOMCOM needs to be able to figure out for itself what that phrase 
means and how to execute on it.  I do not think we should be 
prescriptive about how to do this.  I'm concerned that what you're 
proposing is overly prescriptive.  I prefer the original text.

Jim

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2013 13:23:42 -0400

G'day,

>           these requirements shall be made public after nominees are

{ At the end of this message is a proposed revision to the above draft. 
  It synthesizes the input from messages posted about this on the IETF 
list.  Between here and that text I respond to those postings.  /d }

There have been a number of comments on this draft text proposal:

> since it can reject candidates who were selected by evaluation

The role and authority/power of the IAB in this process is already 
defined elsewhere in the document.  It (carefully) does not deal with 
the criteria or other details that the IAB might focus on when raising a 
concern or, ultimately, refusing to confirm.  Nothing in the proposed 
text pertains to the confirming body; so there doesn't seem to be a need 
to add more, potentially confusing, text on the topic.

On 3/13/2013 3:05 PM, Spencer Dawkins wrote:
> probably like to know what the description Nomcom uses really is, and
> so would people being asked to comment on willing nominees. As a
> member of one of the confirming bodies, I would like to know what
> Nomcom thinks the description is, when I'm considering candidates to
> confirm.

oops.  Yeah, I got the sequencing wrong.  Below the text is revised to 
remove all sense of timing, such as removing "then"; so while the set of 
sentences is ordered, no step is phrased as related to another.  Nomcoms 
are entirely competent to figure out the sequence themselves, IMO.  Good 
catch.  Thanks.

On 3/13/2013 2:46 PM, Scott Brim wrote:
 > You could change "requirements" to "criteria".

The irony is that I'm also a critic of the word but had convinced myself 
that it worked here; however your point is of course correct and I 
prefer criteria, too.

On 3/13/2013 2:51 PM, Michael StJohns wrote:
> Can the nomcom waive or otherwise ignore "objective" criteria such as
> "must have been a working group chair"?  (and lest someone claim that

Can?  Of course?  Must?  Probably not.  The existing philosophy for this 
controlling document is to leave internal processes internal.  In spite 
of its risk, I'm a fan of keeping this document at its current level of 
granularity.

One might imagine a paper that offers thoughts on the internals of a 
Nomcom, by way of providing opinions, expertise, etc.  Clinical guidance 
can always be helpful...

> And I'd still leave "understanding" rather than "determination"  in

I hope the switch to "criteria" assuages your concern.  The reason I 
think a tone of firmness about the criteria -- rather than something 
softer like 'understanding' is that the Nomcom isn't just chatting and 
offering an opinion.  It is making decision, based on these attributes 
and the more clear it is about them, the more clear it and the rest of 
us will be in dealing with the list.

> your re-phrasing to make it clear that the requirements must derive
> from the externally stated desires, wishes and hopes, rather than
> created whole cloth from the Nomcom's preferences.

Actually, the draft text imposes no such constraint on Nomcom's 
determination of the criteria, and I intentionally refrained from even 
implying such a constraint.  To require anything like the constraint you 
suggest is to give the creator of the input requirements control over 
Nomcom's criteria.

I understand the basic purpose of our current exercise as being 
assignment of authority over the job description to Nomcom, not the body 
for which the position is being selection.

I think all this matches where your brief follow-on sub-thread went.

On 3/13/2013 3:29 PM, Michael StJohns wrote:
> Which then suggests that the requirements should be provided far in
> advance of the nominations, rather in conjunction with the
> nominations.  I think that surprising the confirming body with the
> requirements at the last moment could tend to lead to further
> disruptions in the process.

While your rationale strikes me as entirely reasonable, I think that the 
pragmatics of how nomcom's work -- as well as the nature of interactions 
with confirming bodies -- doesn't.

Although Nomcoms try to do things as a reasonable sequence, the nature 
of their composition and development means they keep making adjustments 
along the way, including (re-)negotiating amongst itself how it will use 
criteria and what criteria it might focus on.

 >     determined by waving the right magic wand. ;^)

Harumph!  It doesn't wander.  It moves with dedicated purpose...

 >     These are separable, and deserve to be distinguished from each
       other.

What text you are proposing as an alternative?

 > of any relaxing (least of all changes!) to the "desired expertise"

see above.

 > "requirements" in a formal report posted to <ietf-announce>.

Again, there is a range range of important procedural detail that the 
existing does not provide.  I'm in the camp that thinks that's 
appropriate.  We haven't had a problem with the lack of formal 
specification for those details.  Let's not fix something that's been 
working well.

On 3/15/2013 12:47 PM, James Galvin wrote:
> consensus" is deliberately ambiguous.

As I suggested, the problem isn't just ambiguity.  This text contains 
two fundamental errors.  The first is that there is an IETF community 
consensus on the relevant job criteria.  The second is that a Nomcom 
knows it or can find it out.

One can certainly imagine a separate process -- prior to, and 
independent of -- Nomcom, for getting the community to standardize the 
job requirements/criteria.  I doubt such an effort would be productive.

  = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

Revised draft text:

         2. The nominating committee determines the criteria for the
            job, synthesizing the desires expressed by the IAB, IESG or
            IAOC (as appropriate), desires express by the community, and
            the nominating committee's own assessment; it informs the
            community and candidates of these determined criteria; it
            advises each confirming body of its respective candidates;
            the nominating committee shall provide the confirming body
            with supporting materials that cover its selections,
            including the final version of criteria that the nominating
            committee used when making its selections.

Hums and further comments are eagerly sought...

d/

---

From: James Galvin <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 16 Mar 2013 12:24:58 -0400

-- On March 15, 2013 1:23:42 PM -0400 Dave Crocker <[email-masked]> 
wrote regarding Re: Consensus on the responsibility for qualifications? 
(Was: Re:	Nomcom is responsible for IESG qualifications) --

> independent of -- Nomcom, for getting the community to standardize
> the job requirements/criteria.  I doubt such an effort would be
> productive.

What you're saying is that what I see as a feature you see as a bug.

Perhaps we do need something mostly stable but I agree with your 
assertion that an effort to standardize that would be at least 
challenging if unlikely to be productive.

The point of the original text (and as editor of 3777 I do know what 
the intent was even if we disagree on the expression) was to allow the 
NOMCOM to adjust to the changing needs of the community at will.  I 
disagree with you that the NOMCOM is unlikely to be able to gather 
community consensus and act on it.

This community can be quite deliberate about its opinions and rather 
vociferant about them too.  If the community really believed there was 
an issue that the NOMCOM needed to address I completely believe the 
NOMCOM would know it and thus would act on it.  If the NOMCOM is not 
getting that input then it must be the case that the NOMCOM is doing an 
okay job.

On the other hand, if a NOMCOM makes an unpopular decision and only 
finds out after the fact, then that means the next NOMCOM (and maybe 
the next) has to fix it.  That's how the process was supposed to work.

I really don't see a need to change this text.  I confess I have lost 
track of exactly what problem we are trying to solve here.

Jari proposed a consensus, which aligns with what is documented in my 
opinion.  If you want to change the text to be more in line with Jari's 
words that's fine with me.  However, I believe that your words are 
overly prescriptive.

An important principle in 3777 is to give the NOMCOM the flexibility it 
needs to do what it needs to do when it needs to be done, but no less 
flexibility than it needs.  I see your text as reducing that 
flexibility by stating how the NOMCOM "understands the community 
consensus".

Do other folks really believe we need (or want) to do that?

Jim

---

From: SM <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 16 Mar 2013 11:26:17 -0700

Hi Jim,
At 09:24 AM 3/16/2013, James Galvin wrote:
>An important principle in 3777 is to give the NOMCOM the flexibility 
>it needs to do what it needs to do when it needs to be done, but no 
>less flexibility than it needs.  I see your text as reducing that 
>flexibility by stating how the NOMCOM "understands the community consensus".

There is flexibility in RFC 3777.  I don't know whether that has been 
exercised.  Getting into "consensus" might create problems in the 
model and the community will end up with a document where parts of it 
are not followed in practice.

Regards,
-sm

---

From: "Fred Baker (fred)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 16 Mar 2013 19:05:13 +0000

> (And again, this mail is just about a process clarification, not something that should affect current nomcom process, this has nothing to do with selecting specific persons this year, etc.)

My understanding, at least in the case of the TSV AD in this event, is that
   - the IESG proposed qualifications they thought applied
   - the nomcom may or may not have adjusted them, looked at the pool of candidates that were willing to serve, and then picked the one they thought was best qualified among those available
   - the confirming body (in this case the IAB) then rejected the candidate.

I think that makes the confirming body the one that, in the final analysis, sets the qualifications required. And BTW, I have to believe that the nomcom did everything in its power to find someone qualified; that brings me to the conclusion that it is quite possible for the confirming body to require a specification for a person that doesn't exist in the pool of available candidates.

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 16 Mar 2013 17:08:21 -0400

> My understanding, at least in the case of the TSV AD in this event, is that

Fred,

I think we've all done a pretty good job of separating discussion of the 
immediate crisis from discussing the broader question of Nomcom and job 
criteria.  I don't remember whether I've posted about the former -- 
mostly I think we have no information about their internal process -- 
nor should we -- and therefore none of us can say much about it.

In any event, the thread with the above Subject line is about the latter 
topic, explicitly meant to apply to /later/ Nomcoms...

> I think that makes the confirming body the one that, in the final analysis, sets the qualifications required.

As I explained in my response to Jim Galvin, I read RFC 3777 as 
establishing an implicit truth to your assessment, but I also think we 
need to keep it implicit.

The more serious issue, which is what surfaced /ex/plicitly is whether 
Nomcom has to take whatever they are given as job criteria -- developed 
by the body of which the job holder is a member -- or whether it is 
explicitly authorized to write and use its own criteria for the job.

Again, my reading of this thread looked like a pretty clear community 
preference for the latter.

d/

---

From: Pete Resnick <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 17 Mar 2013 08:26:34 -0400

>     - the confirming body (in this case the IAB) then rejected the candidate.

Officially, you can't know any such thing. There are two possibilities:

1. The NomCom left the slot empty and the IAB said "OK".
2. The NomCom filled the slot and the IAB said "No".

And of course, there could have been multiple attempts of each of the 
above, in any order, including the possibility that the NomCom filled 
the slot, the IAB said, "No, we say that the qualifications that you 
used were wrong and reject your proposal" and the NomCom said, "Bite us. 
These are the qualifications. That's who you get or the slot remains 
empty." So I don't think you can necessarily conclude that the IAB has 
final authority over the decision.

Now, you could have read the patterns of black or white smoke emitting 
from the NomCom or analyzed previous IAB behavior or read tea leaves and 
surmised what might have happened, but *unless someone on the NomCom or 
the IAB broke confidentiality*, you don't know which one of these things 
happened. I would presume that if there was a true stalemate, the 
ensuing constitutional crisis would have been made public, but with the 
information we know I don't think you can conclude anything.

pr

-- 
Pete Resnick<http://www.qualcomm.com/~presnick/>
Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. - +1 (858)651-4478

---

From: John Leslie <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2013 23:42:24 -0400

> Harumph!  It doesn't wander.  It moves with dedicated purpose...

   ;^)

> What text you are proposing as an alternative?

   I'll come back to that...

>> of any relaxing (least of all changes!) to the "desired expertise"

   There's a lot of "above". Which in particular?
 
> Again, there is a range range of important procedural detail that
> the existing does not provide.  I'm in the camp that thinks that's 
> specification for those details.  Let's not fix something that's
> been working well.

   But it hasn't been working well! You have said yourself that some
prior NomComs have felt prevented from changing anything of the
"desired expertise".

>    job, synthesizing the desires expressed by the IAB, IESG or
                           ^^^^^^^
should be "desired expertise"

>    IAOC (as appropriate), desires express by the community, and
                            ^^^^^^^
should be "qualifications required" 

>    community and candidates of these determined criteria;

   "Informing the community" is technically sufficient; but I still
believe that the NomCom being chosen randomly is unlikely to have
much expertise in judging community consensus: the confirming bodies
are much more likely to have that expertise, and the confirming
bodies may disagree with the NomCom's judgment of these criteria.
Some formal consultation with the confirming bodies before publishing
the criteria to the full community is likely to avoid a rash of
troubles...

   Regardless of the text here, somebody who disagrees with the
NomCom's judgment of consensus on these criteria will find a way
to appeal. :^(

>    it advises each confirming body of its respective candidates;

   There is a whole lot which needs to happen after publication of
criteria and before informing confirming bodies of nominations.
At the very least, there should be a paragraph break here...

--
John Leslie <[email-masked]>>