RE: SUMMARY: publish list of nominees?

[David Allan <dallan@nortelnetworks.com>]

Title: RE: SUMMARY: publish list of nominees?

I have to conceed I have trouble with the stochastic approach to feedback collection. There is disincentive for me to offer opinions on an individual purely on speculation that they are being considered. Seems to me that those aware of an individuals nomination are more likely to offer feedback, and this is more akin to campaigning. Folks don't nominate people they don't want, and do not publicize nominations to those expected to oppose it. The only current visible target of campaigning is the incumbent, and they are a known target regardless of the transparency of the process, so there is opportunity for some balance in the feedback.

I agree that the nomcom needs to go out and do legwork, but the current schedule gives you one IETF to do so face to face.

Some of the feedback we got unsolicited on certain individuals would have made God blush. As far as community feedback is concerned, campaingning exists without checks and balances under the current arrangement. IMHO the filtering task of the NOMCOM would not be different than it is today if steps were taken to make the process more transparent. Either you discard unsolicited feedback and depend only on your legwork (disenfranchising a large portion of the community), or you consider a more balanced way to collect community feedback.

cheers
Dave

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Robert Elz [mailto:kre@munnari.OZ.AU]
> Sent: Tuesday, April 02, 2002 6:58 AM
> To: ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com
> Subject: Re: SUMMARY: publish list of nominees?
>
>
> I would like to take this discussion into a slightly different
> direction.
>
> The apparent intent of publishing this list is so the nomcom can get
> community feedback on its proposed or possible nominations (depending
> upon at exactly what time, and what list, were to be published).
>
> I believe that's not a desirable aim - that is, what people
> are attempting
> to achieve is broken in the first place, so that any
> mechanism to achieve
> it is inappropriate.
>
> While it isn't wrong (and very likely is good) for the nomcom
> to attempt
> to obtain some input on the various nominees, by asking around a bit,
> the right way for the nomcom to collect information is for
> the community
> to provide it, unasked.
>
> If we, the community, aren't providing the nomcom with the information
> they need to do their work, then we really have no right at
> all to complain
> about the results of their work.
>
> The right way for all of this to be done, is that if you (as
> a member of
> the community) feel that person X would make a good Y, then
> you ask X if
> they'd be interested (just as a courtesy, and to save
> everyone unnecessary
> work), and then if they say yes, or even perhaps, you send a
> message to the
> nomcom and suggest that X should be made a Y.   Then the
> nomcom can take
> the set of X's they are given, get rid of any they consider hopeless
> (based upon other feedback, etc), ask whatever is left if they'd be
> willing to be considered, do some arm twisting to convince
> some of them
> they they really should allow themselves to be considered,
> and then set
> out making a decision based upon what they have been told in
> the various
> messages from all the different people who thought X would be
> a good choice,
> and any other input they may have been able to collect from
> the people they
> do decide to talk to.
>
> There's no reason that any of the rest of us should know that
> X is being
> considered, if we didn't send in any input, then hard luck, if we did
> make some suggestions, then our input will already be being
> considered.
>
> As to making sure the process is followed - that exactly the
> kind of thing
> that the liaisons should be doing, and reporting back that
> all is happening
> properly, or not (usually with no need for details).   Those
> reports would
> of course appear in the minutes of the meetings of the bodies
> the liaison
> represents - so if a liaison believes that things are a bit wonky
> that would be public info fairly quickly.
>
> While I'm ranting about nomcom practices let me also say that I don't
> much like the practice of the nomcom sedning out questionaires to
> nominees, in which they ask the nominee to explain why they'd be a
> good person to be appointed, etc.    We don't need to be getting
> people to tell the nomcom all their good points, and why they're
> perfect for the job - that should come from those who suggest them
> (other than in the case of a self-nomination of course, but that just
> falls out of the method).   Asking whether the nominee has the time,
> resources, etc, and even (perhaps) what they'd like to do in the role
> is OK, but I don't believe the nomcom should be soliciting
> self praise.
>
> kre
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription
> manager: <http://lists.elistx.com/subscribe>
>