Re: What I was trying to say in the plenary last week

[Geoff Huston <gih@telstra.net>]

Russ,

I understand your perspective that you see this matter as being represented 
as choice along a single axis, where you see confidentiality and the amount 
of feedback being related in some fashion, and within that perspective your 
points are well argued and accepted.

My concern is, however, outside of that perspective, and I am asserting 
that there are many aspects to weakening of confidentiality, and one of 
them is the ability to have such a process of nominee publication be 
subverted by deliberate campaigning by nominees. I have seen, as many 
Nomcom participants have been aware of, campaigning in the past, but these 
exercises have been relatively low key because, as far as I can tell, 
without any explicit confirmation that the nominee is on any short list, 
the campaigning exercise rapidly loses momentum. But if you provide that 
essential feedback, and you reinforce it with repeated iterations of short 
lists where some nominees are re-listed, then you are providing a degree of 
feedback that makes deliberate attempts to influence the nomcom through 
organized campaigning not only possible, but, I'm afraid, highly likely.

Maybe I don't have as high an opinion of others as I could, maybe I'm just 
too cynical, or maybe I've seen this happen before in other venues and am 
not all that keen to see it repeated in this one, but for whatever reason I 
find this particular proposal to be a first step down a path that is not, 
in my humble opinion, in the best interests of the IETF as a whole, and one 
that does not (again in my opinion) address the base issue of confidence 
that the Nomcom is being diligent in consulting the relevant constituencies.

Geoff