Re: SUMMARY: serving on both IAB and IESG concurrently

[Thomas Narten <narten@us.ibm.com>]

> My concern is that, as stated, it is probably almost impossible to ever 
> agree that there is a problem, much less a clearly understood
> problem.

But if there isn't an understanding of what the real underlying
problem is, we can be pretty darn sure that any proposed "fix" won't
be.

> One of the consequences of confidentiality is that it is hard to see what 
> went on.  We should not remove most of that confidentiality.  But it does 
> make it very hard to observe a problem.  Therefore, we must deduce one from 
> the results.

From my view from within this year's nomcom and also listening to
folks outside the nomcom, there seem to be at least two *different*
reasons that folks are calling for publishing a list of candidates.

The nomcom-internal view (as I read it anyway) had a lot to do with
wanting to be able to get broader feedback about the candidates it was
considering *without* feeling like they might be asking too broadly
and hence violating the confidentiality rules. I'll note that I have
heard criticism from both sides on this nomcom. Some have asserted we
asked for input too broadly, while others have said we didn't solicit
broadly enough. Kind of a no-win. Thus, from the nomcom side,
publishing some sort of list might take off some of the heat with
regards to the confidentiality rules.

On the other hand, at least some of those outside of the nomcom seem
to view a publication of a list as a way to get better insight into
what is going on within the nomcom, so that they can presumably
provide input, if what they see disturbs them. Personally, I don't
think that publishing a list will provide folks with the insight they
really want, and publishing a list won't deal with their basic
problem.

> For example, in discussing the degree of oversight the review bodies do or 
> should have, we are speculating on a number of fronts, including what the 
> real current interaction is, what the current perception of the review 
> bodies as to their rights and authority are, and how effective or 
> ineffective the current feedback mechanism is in provide a check on the 
> nomcom choices.

My sense is that there is some lack of clarity in what is acceptable
in terms of pushback from the confirming body. Confirming bodies can
question process and whether there is due diligence, but to some
extent, they are shooting in the dark on this, since they don't
necessarily know what the nomcom actually did. The IAB has a liaison
(and thus has some view of what happened when it confirms the IESG
slate). On the other hand, the ISOC BOT does not have a liaison, so
they have very limited insight into what happened. Thus, they have
little specific to go on in terms of pushback, other than perhaps not
liking the proposed slate and having a number of unanswered questions
about why the slate is as it is.

In the hallway, I've heard a number of different ideas on how to
possibly try to address the problem. For example, if the primary
concern is "verify that the nomcom is following adequate process", one
approach might be to have each confirming body have a liaison that is
required to formally confirm that processes have been following prior
to the confirming body being handed the slate. Now, this also has
issues, in the sense that the liaison can potentially become a single
veto. So the circumstances under which a veto could be issued need to
be clear along with a resolution mechanism. This liason would also be
able to provide context and input to the confirming body's
discussion. Quite frankly, I have to express sympathy for a confirming
body that has absolutely no insight into the nomcom deliberations
being asked to confirm its output. On what grounds can it ask
questions or say no?

Note also that the above would still do nothing in terms of making
nomcom-internal deliberations more transparent, which is what I
*think* is behind a lot of the calls for publishing the list of
candidates.

So, I think it really is important that we get a handle on what
underlying problem (if any) folks think needs fixing.

> I believe that the current review bodies see themselves as not having the 
> practical ability to say no.

Hypothetical question. On what grounds could they say no? What words
in 2727 provide guidance on when they can and can't say no?

Thomas