Re: DISCUSSION: publish list of nominees?

[Russ White <ruwhite@cisco.com>]

I agree with this logic, and will go one bit farther. Because of
the rules on confidentiality, many people probably feel 'left
out' of the process. They don't know who was nominated, aren't
asked for feedback, and don't know how the process
works. Publishing the list of people who are nominated would at
least help us all understand the process better, and would help
us get better feedback into the process as well.

Further, the confidentiality rule is a bit of a waste in today's
environment, anyway. When the ietf was smaller, and everyone knew
everyone, everyone who was nominated was probably known by at
least a subset of the people who were on the nomcom. Or at least
that's my assumption.

Now, it's just not viable to assume that the people on the nomcom
are going to know everyone who is nominated, so feedback has to
be solicited. In fact, I'll go one step further, and state that
the folks on the nomcom don't even necessarily know _who_ to ask,
in many cases.

The nomcom ends up asking all the working group chairs in the
area, a group of other selected people, and a list of people who
write drafts in the area. In effect, everyone gets asked for
feedback. All under confidentiality. Right.

Three people can keep a secret if two of them are dead.

So, why bother trying to keep the secret?

Russ

On Wed, 27 Mar 2002, James M Galvin wrote:

> 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?
> 
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription
> manager: <http://lists.elistx.com/subscribe>
> 

__________________________________
riw@cisco.com CCIE <>< Grace Alone