DISCUSSION: publish list of nominees?

[James M Galvin <galvin+ietf-nomcom@eListX.com>]

I'm not convinced adding more time would help as much the proposal Brian
made.

The issue, as I see it, is that in practice the confirming body can not
say no.  Setting aside whether or not this is a feature, at least one
goal of having the confirming body be able to say no is a check and
balance on the activities of the NOMCOM.

It occurs to me this is not the best way to achieve that goal, or at
least it is not the only way.  I think that publishing the list of
nominees (those individuals under consideration *not* the individuals
that have been submitted to the confirming bodies for confirmation)
gives the community an opportunity to see a little of how the NOMCOM
works.

In particular, under the current system the community sees only an
endpoint.  If we publish the list of nominees then the community sees
the starting point as well.  The community now has a basis for
evaluating the goal achieved by the NOMCOM.

Under the current system, the NOMCOM only knows what it asks of the
"select" few people it asks.  Although it is true the community can
always comment on who would be a good or bad candidate, in practice this
does not happen.  The question is too vague and therefore the answer is
necessary vague, viz absent.  If we publish the list of nominees the
community now has a specific question before them.  I don't know if this
will elicit any additional information but I believe it provides a
greater incentive to the community to do so.

It is my opinion that publishing the list of nominees allows the
community to be a part of the checks and balances of the activities of
the NOMCOM.  I consider this is a feature with no downside.

Some might think it is embarrassing to be a nominee and then not get
selected as a candidate.  I would like to observe that in democratic
elections in general we always know who all the nominees are; it is the
way elections work.  I would hope it is an honor to be considered and
recognized as a senior member of the community.

Jim
(speaking for myself)



On Wed, 27 Mar 2002, Randy Bush wrote:

    agree with your problem statement.  but could it not be more simply, and
    less contentiously, solved by shifting dates left a month or two?