Re: DISCUSSION: publish list of nominees?

[John C Klensin <john+nomcom@jck.com>]

--On Friday, 05 April, 2002 15:39 +0200 Brian E Carpenter
<brian@hursley.ibm.com> wrote:

> OK. I withdraw my proposal to publish the list of nominees, on
> the  assumption that
> a) we will stretch the timescale, to allow a non-panic response
>    in the event that the confirming body rejects a candidate
> b) we will clarify the role of the confirming bodies (and their
>    liaisons) in verifying that due process has been followed
> by NomCom.

Brian, Geoff,

Let me suggest that one additional bit of tuning might be useful
to capture what may be the core goal that started this thread:

Today, 2727 essentially says "everything having to do with
candidates is confidential".  It seems to me from the
observation and recent postings that nomcoms have figured out
that, sometimes, the goal of maximum and uniform confidentiality
is in conflict with the goal of maximum diversity and quality of
input.  A few present and past nomcom members have even
suggested that having recognized that conflict, they have
figured out ways to avoid the rules a bit.

Would it be useful to say, explicitly, that confidentiality
about comments made about candidates is the primary requirement
and that nomcoms may decide to relax confidentiality about,
e.g., the list of candidates under consideration for a given
position if they determine that is needed to get good input.

That would have a few advantages over our current situation
while, I would assume, changing nothing most of the time.  By
giving the decision explicitly to the nomcom, we give them a bit
more discretion to evaluate the circumstances they are facing
and to deal with it.  It also makes the decision to relax the
rules a _nomcom_ decision, subject to whatever checks, balances,
and reviews exist in the process, rather than being a decision
that individuals on the nomcom are quietly making for themselves
(decisions that are essentially indistinguishable from random or
goal-serving leaks).  I would also assume that a confirming body
could challenge the nomcom for making or not making such a
decision if it seemed to have an adverse impact on selection of
quality nominees and that the range of discretion would extend
all the way to publishing lists if the nomcom concluded that was
necessary -- although I would hope we could avoid going into
that much detail.

It would seem to do two other things for us:

(i) The nomcom gets clear guidance on the priorities, guidance
which, if I correctly interpret the remarks on the list, the
community generally agrees on anyway.

(ii) It properly warns people that the fact that their names are
being considered is not a hard secret.  One of the concerns
about today's process is that, if someone really expected
confidentiality about being considered, almost any broad
input-seeking process is going to compromise that to some
degree, and we might as well be clear about it.   On the other
hand, if the nomcom started twisted someone's arm and he or she
agreed to be considered only in return for strict
confidentiality (I can imagine several types of situations in
which that would be appropriate and necessary and will go
through them if needed), the nomcom ought to be able to
negotiate those conditions if they  thought them appropriate.

     john