Re: DISCUSSION: publish list of nominees?

[Brian E Carpenter <brian@hursley.ibm.com>]

Geoff Huston wrote:
> 
> At 4/4/2002 06:09 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> >Geoff Huston wrote:
> > >
> > > At 4/3/2002 11:48 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> > > > > That sounds like a thoroughly unfair and ineffective way to make
> > progress,
> > > > > and a very good way to make sure that no-one with half a brain
> > would agree
> > > > > to be nominated until after the list had been published.
> > > >
> > > >Fair enough, so maybe a hard cutoff for nominations is needed. That is
> > what
> > > >most organisations do anyway.
> > >
> > > And at that point the Nomcom loses any ability to arm twist  to ensure that
> > > they really have managed to find the best individuals available. Maybe
> > > there's a view that this is not necessarily a bad thing, but experience has
> > > indicated that Nomcoms do tend to work up to the wire in attempting to
> > > convince suitably qualified folk that they should be considered. A cut off
> > > date for nominations tends to dilute the Nomcom's brief to find the best
> > > person for each role from the entire IETF community to a more qualified
> > > task of selecting the best person from a fixed set of names. I'm not sure
> > > how this would result in a better outcome for the IETF.
> >
> >In fact it would only work in conjunction with stretching the whole
> >timescale as Ted sugggested, i.e. moving the "wire" earlier - so the
> >package we have to decide about is
> >
> >a) add 3 or 4 months to the timeline by starting NomCom one meeting sooner
> >b) define a firm date after which NomCom will not consider new nominees
> >c) publish & regularly update the list of willing nominees, freezing it on
> >that date
> >
> >The claimed benefit is that it will ensure that NomCom has considered all
> >reasonable nominees and input from the entire community, and give time for
> >effective NomCom response if a confirming body chooses to reject a candidate.
> 
> Brian, I cannot understand how this "package" answers my doubts that
> thisproposal effectively diluted the Nomcom's role from seeking the best
> available
> candidate (for some arm-twisted value of 'available') to picking from a
> fixed list.
> 
> I don't think your response addresses this issue.

It was meant to. There is always a deadline by which the arm-twisting has
to stop, set by this sentence from 2727:
      The annual selection and confirmation process is expected to be
      completed one month prior to the friday of the week before the
      First IETF
The effect of the changes would be to move the arm-twisting deadline 
earlier, to the date on which the final list of nominees was published. 
But if we give the NomCom more time anyway, I don't see why this
dilutes their ability to seek the best people.

   Brian