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

[Matt Holdrege <matt.holdrege@verizon.net>]

There is procedure and all nomcom members are watched by each other, the 
chair and the liaisons. So while nomcom members have free will in their 
deliberations, they do not have freedom to act outside of procedures.

It is essential to protect the freedom of the nomcom when it comes to 
making choices. We don't "ignore everything and do what we want". Rather we 
listen to everything and *then* vote as we please. The  process ensures 
that we are presented with as many data points as we can get. After that, 
it's all in the hands of individual consciences.

Given the above (if you will), what needs to change? Democracies do not 
ensure that you will get what you want. So, unless you want to eliminate 
democracy or move to an unworkable form of democracy (we create membership 
and we all vote), I don't see what we can change?


At 10:41 AM 7/14/2002, John C Klensin wrote:
> 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>
> >
> >