Re: SUMMARY: publish list of nominees?

[Robert Elz <kre@munnari.OZ.AU>]

    Date:        Tue, 2 Apr 2002 10:36:02 -0500
    From:        Theodore Tso <tytso@mit.edu>
    Message-ID:  <20020402103602.B2046@thunk.org>

  | The problem with this is that nomcom may not necessary hear about why
  | X may be a bad choice.

I had a similar response in private mail, I hope the author of that
message won't object to treating this reply as a reply to them as well
(save me sending more or less the same thing in a private message).

That might perhaps be, though I think the chances are pretty small, even
smaller if the nomcom actually seeks information rather than just collecting
what is volunteered to it.

  | For example, suppose we have a case where X has managed to antagonise
  | 50% of the working group chairs in a particular area,

This is not necessarily a bad thing... (but leave that aside for now).

  | One approach might be to send out queries to all of the working group
  | chairs in the area, plus other significant people.

Seems reasonable to me?

  | But if you're
  | going to do that, you come close to making the list public anyway.  So
  | why not making it public at that point?

Only if the query actually mentions names.  It need not.  It can just
remind the people that an AD position in the X area is up for selection,
and ask if there are any people who would be particularly suited to the
job, any people who would be not a good idea to appoint, and a list of
the qualities that are thought to be necessary for someone to be selected
as the relevant AD.

Ideally, those should (at least look like)personal messages - not a form
letter ("To all Ads...") - human nature suggests that you're going to get
better replies if it looks to the recipient as if their opinion is valued
and sought explicitly, rather than they're just one of a crowd that is
being asked.

Further, the message could offer to disclose a list of possible appointees
provided the recipient agrees to keep them confidential, and if the response
requests that list, then send it - the actual nominees being considered, and
a few more (often people who were suggested but declined).

I recall being interviewed about some AD position some years ago where
that was done (don't remember which AD slot, don't recall who the names
were, never did find out which were the ring ins), and thought it a
reasonably effective way.   Provided the person receiving the list has
already agreed to keep it confidential, this is not unreasonable.

  | Another approach might be to wait until the confirming body gets the
  | list

While I have no problem with making it clear that we expect confirming
bodies to occasionally reject people (I was an IAB member during one nomcom
confirmation when that came quite close to being done - but we chickened]
out...), but I don't think it is the right way to operate as the standard
way of working.

On the other hand, members of the IAB would be good people to query about
possible IESG appointments, as members of the IESG would be about possible
IAB appointments (along with chairs, and anyone else the nomcom thinks
could offer useful input - they could even solicit opinions on from where
opinions should be sought).

  | So that's why I believe publishing the list is useful.

Yes, I know why it would be useful - I just feel that the drawbacks
outweigh the benefits.

I also still have yet to see a concrete proposal for exactly how this
would be done.   I know that Brian's "have a closing date for nominations"
is not a satisfactory solutiuon.   Continually updating lists (even without
any deletions) doesn't seem like a good idea to me either.


  | In fact, if we only
  | rely on people who submit candidates to say nice things about them,
  | I'd argue this is EVEN MORE LIKELY to result in popularity contents!

If we did that, then perhaps - but it is hard to believe that the IETF
participants (or those of them I know) are going to be all that
reluctant to also send in negative comments about people who should
not be considered.


[On the questionaire]
  | It's not just asking for the good points, but it's also about trying
  | to find out information about the candidates philosophy, etc.

That part I don't mind.   It was the "why would you make a good AD" type
question (or IAB member) on the questionaire the few times I've seen one.
I think even once "why do you want to be on the ..."

Personally, I have never really wanted to be on any of those, and I have
no intention of saying I do - if the nomcom decided (for some weird reason)
that I would make a good choice, then I see it as their job to convince me,
not my job to convince them.

  | On the other hand, part of the problem is that the input from the
  | community is very often not very substantive.

I certainly have no problem with giving some guidelines to the community
(and perhaps future nomcoms) as to what kind of input is useful, and how
it should be presented.  That certainly sounds like a good idea.

kre