What is the problem [was Re: SUMMARY: publish list of nominees?]

[Leslie Daigle <leslie@thinkingcat.com>]

I have to say that I resonated with Don's concern about this
year's NomCom having sent a solicitation for information to
all the WG's in the APPs area (it was clearly labeled as "to all
APPS Area WG Chairs").  As a result, I have elsewhere stated
my personal opinion, which has increasingly been that we need to
publish the list of nominees in order to be sure to get adequate
community input.  But, I am swayed by arguments that this 
could create a popularity contest situation, and also that it
puts additional pressure on the NomCom if it doesn't make the
selection that "conventional wisdom" dictates.

So, let's go back to the problem:

	How do we ensure that the NomCom gets the relevant input
	to its deliberations, while maintaining enough
	confidentiality that honest and open information can
	be input, and without turning this into a popularity
	contest?

Input is required for 2 different things:

	. general input on what is needed for a given position

	. specific input on nominees under consideration (or not)

I would argue that some change to existing process is needed, because
as it stands the NomCom is forced to identify the relevant 
sources of information and go solicit it.  The IETF is big
enough that a random committee of 12 isn't likely to span it evenly. 
I don't think that broadcasting a message to all the WG chairs in an
Area  (or even WG chairs + document authors) does it.  And, WG chairs
& doc authors are not the only ones with important input.  

If opening up the list of nominees publicly doesn't do it either,
we need another proposal...

Leslie.


Donald Eastlake 3rd wrote:
> 
> I agree with Robert. The nomcom process is supposed to be a confidential
> personnel selection process of people to serve the IETF community. When
> a non-profit organization or company selects, say, a Division Director
> or Chief Technology Officer or Chief Financial Officer, do they publish
> the lists of everyone they are considering and update it continuously
> during the process so everyone can chime in with their opinion? Not
> in my experience.
> 
> Its a continuous slope. If an alphabetic merged list of all suggested
> persons for either IAB or IESG were published and updated as names were
> added with no names every being dropped, I suppose the damage would be
> less. (Although you can't discount the possibility that someone would be
> so pissed at being listed they would sue. (It's common for several
> people to be suggested to the nomcom for the IAB that do not and have
> never had an connection with the IETF. Who knows what such people might
> do if publicly listed and not selected?)) But you'd still have the case
> of a name added at the last minute and then nominated and confirmed,
> which would say to all the others being considered for that position
> that the nomcom considered them such a bad possibility that they had to
> scrap the bottom of the barrel to find someone acceptable.  (I've been
> on four nomcoms and in those there was always at least one and sometimes
> 2 IESG positions for which the nomcom had to wrack their brains, ask the
> members of the community for suggestions, pour over the IAB and the
> list, etc., before finding someone they considered good enough to
> nominate AND willing to take the job.)
> 
> The more information is published, the more it will warp the process
> towards a popularity contest, away for a selection of the best person,
> and cause embarassment. As a WG chair in both the APPS and SEC areas
> this year, I was solicited to rate a number of persons as possible AD in
> each area. I understand such requests were was blanket mailed to all WG
> chairs for their areas which I believe is the first time this has ever
> been done. While I understand that some others obviously have a
> different opinion, I consider that such a widespread and broadcast of
> who was being considered to be a violation of the nomcom confidentiality
> provisions notwithstanding the invocation of nomcom confidentiality in
> the message.
> 
> There is clearly a balance between getting enough information on persons
> being considered and communicating with so many people about who is
> being considered to solicit their opinions that the confidentiality
> becomes a joke. This year's nomcom was, in my opinion, over the line,
> particularly since some persons being considered were WG chairs in the
> area for whose AD they were being considered. Thus many being considered
> for AD found out who else was being considered, something previous
> nomcoms have tried particularly to avoid in most cases.
> 
> Donald
> 
> On Sat, 30 Mar 2002, Robert Elz wrote:
> 
> > Date: Sat, 30 Mar 2002 17:00:58 +0700
> > From: Robert Elz <kre@munnari.OZ.AU>
> > To: James M Galvin <galvin+ietf-nomcom@eListX.com>
> > Cc: ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com
> > Subject: Re: SUMMARY: publish list of nominees?
> >
> >     Date:        Fri, 29 Mar 2002 12:56:27 -0500 (EST)
> >     From:        James M Galvin <galvin+ietf-nomcom@eListX.com>
> >     Message-ID:  <Pine.BSF.4.43.0203291243520.23473-100000@three.elistx.com>
> >
> >   |     PROPOSED CONSENSUS: We should publish the list of nominees and
> >   |     continue to update the list throughout the NOMCOM process.
> >
> > You can (probably already did) assume I disagree.  This is the worst
> > of all the possible interpretations of this - consider you see someone
> > on the list of nominees being considered, then you see them vanish,
> > clearly they're not the best available choice - then you see them come
> > back again, and perhaps get nominated (become a candidate, whatever the
> > term is for that).   So, now its clear to everyone that the best nominee
> > for the position has not been appointed - but with no idea at all why.
> >
> > That's an impossible position for anyone to be in.
> >
> > The only way to avoid that would be to keep people on the list who aren't
> > seriously being considered, rather than dropping them - which would cause
> > lots of mail objecting to (sometimes even supporting) people who were never
> > going to be appointed.
> >
> > I'd like to see a fully reasoned workable proposal on this before we
> > start claimimg to have achieved any kind of consensus, or even proposing
> > consensus - just the way we do in other WG's.
> >
> > That is, we don't first decide the issue, and then try and figure out how
> > to make it work, with the issue itself decided, instead we get proposals
> > for how to make it work, and then see if any of them result in a desirable
> > outcome.
> >
> > kre
> >
> > ps: a whole day with no messages on a topic ... clearly everyone has
> > said all they're going to say.    What an absurd concept.
> >
> >
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------
> > To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription
> > manager: <http://lists.elistx.com/subscribe>
> >
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription
> manager: <http://lists.elistx.com/subscribe>

-- 

-------------------------------------------------------------------
"An essential element of a successful journey
    is recognizing when you have arrived."
   -- ThinkingCat

Leslie Daigle
leslie@thinkingcat.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------