Re: Possible extra "oral tradition" for draft-ietf-nomcom-rfc2727bis-01.txt

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

Matt,

Assume this view --that the nomcom will ultimately ignore any
advice or instructions and do what it pleases, presumably based
on its internal biases and dynamics-- is correct and generally
held.  (I'm not that cynical and pessimistic, but I've never been
on the inside.)   I think it then argues for one of three
conclusions:

	* What the community really intends with the nomcom
	process is that we randomly select a bunch of people who,
	using their own judgement and experience (which may be
	quite limited, given the membership requirements), and
	potentially ignoring all input, who are then going to
	determine the future of the IETF.  In that model, nothing
	else counts: not procedures, not information from the
	IESG and IAB as to what capabilities are needed, not real
	experience (beyond nomcom member prejudices) about what
	things work and what don't.  I can't assume that is what
	the community wants.  It would border on insanity to
	stake the IETF's future on the roll of somewhat-loaded
	dice.
	
	* More options for the confirming bodies to dig into the
	nomcom's process, decisions, and reasoning, including, as
	needed, understanding what input was received and how it
	was evaluated.  That probably needs to come with either
	provisions for leaving positions unfilled if we get to
	the first IETF of the year without agreement between a
	confirming body and the nomcom, or provisions for
	oversight during the nomcom process and, potentially, for
	firing a nomcom and starting over. This essentially
	implies that the confidentiality envelope has to be
	expanded to include the confirming bodies (or selected
	subsets of, or proxies for, them).  I don't find that
	approach particularly attractive either -- it could lead
	us into some very bad places.
	
	* The nomcom idea is so defective that we need to discard
	it and find some other approach.   And that isn't
	attractive either, at least absent someone coming up with
	a better idea.  I think that, when this process was put
	in place, we concluded that all of the other
	possibilities were significantly worse.

If the behavior you imply is a real risk -- if former nomcom
members (ex-officio or voting) can tell us that the "we are going
to ignore everything and do what we want" behavior has actually
occurred -- then I suggest that a better alternative would be to
establish a procedure for getting someone who is taking that
approach off of the nomcom and banned from future nomcoms for a
long time the moment some process determines that he or she holds
this type of position.

The nomcom makes decisions on behalf of the community, after
obtaining, and paying very serious intention to, input from the
community.  If a nomcom loses sight of that, we are, I think, in
very serious trouble indeed.

       john



--On Saturday, 13 July, 2002 18:35 -0700 Matt Holdrege
<matt.holdrege@verizon.net> wrote:

> Oral tradition somehow implies someone giving advice to others.
> Advice is always good. But the nomcom can choose to listen or
> ignore such advice. This debate seems to reflect the opinion of
> others that the nomcom *needs* their advice. Everyone wants to
> push the nomcom to their favorite direction. Nothing we do in
> this effort will change that. In the end the nomcom will choose
> who they see fit no matter what official or unofficial
> direction they get.
> 
> So I don't see any point in changing things. The abuses of the
> system, if there are any, are human nature and we can't change
> that. The nomcom will talk to whomever they wish to talk to.
> You can't change that. If we choose to officially publish
> everything, how does that help?
> 
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription
> manager: <http://lists.elistx.com/subscribe>
> 
>