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

[Leslie Daigle <leslie@thinkingcat.com>]

Marshall,

I illustrated my concerns in terms of the actions of the most
recent NomCom, but I was trying to describe the general problem 
that NomComs are increasingly challenged by the task of identifying 
representative and broad-based sources of input.  

In that light, I don't think it's _fair_ to just ask the
next NomCom to 'do something different'.  A year from now,
we'll be complaining they didn't ask _enough_ people for 
input.  Or some other issue.

If not an open nominee list, and not a tortured set of
rules, can we as a community not come up with some more
helpful guidelines -- for the future NomComs, or for the
IETF community interfacing with them?  

Leslie.


Marshall Rose wrote:
> 
> > 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
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> 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
-------------------------------------------------------------------