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

[Marshall Rose <mrose+internet.ietf.nomcom@dbc.mtview.ca.us>]

> 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...

my proposal is "do nothing, but ask the nomcom to try something different next year".

one of the reasons we have ex-officio's is to provide pointers to resources for the nomcom. i have no idea why the nomcom felt it necessary to send out a blanket note like that.

many years ago, when i was on the nomcom and asked to research a particular area, i got some input from the ex-officio's on who to talk to, and then i put together a list of both real-candidates and non-candidates. after interviewing each resource for a while, i waited to see who they mentioned. after the resource was talked out, i started asking about non-candidates and real-candidates, explaining to the resource that because i was doing this, they could make no reasonable inference about who was being considered.

in this fashion, i got useful input from several folks, and they had no way of knowing who was really being considered. i felt this protected the confidentiality of the real-candidates and also gave me a handy way of doing a barium-test on the resources i talked to: each conversation had a couple of unique non-candidates. so if a rumor about the nomcom considering someone got leaked, i knew exactly who was doing the leaking...

now perhaps this is too manipulative for folks. fine, i can live with that.

what i do know is that publishing lists of candidates is a bad, bad idea. just because some folks feel that this year's nomcom didn't handle it as well as they might have, doesn't mean we should institutionalize something much worse...

/mtr