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

["Joel M. Halpern" <joel@stevecrocker.com>]

It has been observed over many years that unless people are asked they tend 
to be reluctant to provide input.  I am making the presumption that the 
absence of names excacerbates this problem, and that making names available 
will at least give people some ideas of what topics (people) it might be 
helpful to provide feedback on.

The reason that the nomcom now goes and asks a set of people is that 
earlier nomcoms did not even do that.  The set of people that was / is 
suggested to the nomcom to contact is not expect / understood to be 
comprehensive.  It was (at the time, and still is as far as I can tell) the 
only list that is not absurdly large and is well defined.  (Telling the 
nomcom "talk to more people" is not in and of itself a helpful suggestions.)

It is not possible for the nomcom to find on its own all the people who 
legiitmately have helpful input.  The premise that extra input (before 
minds are made up) can not possibly be helpful seems unlikely to be accurate.

Yours,
Joel M. Halpern

At 08:03 AM 7/15/2002 -0700, Matt Holdrege wrote:
> At 11:15 AM 7/15/2002, Joel M. Halpern wrote:
> > One of the reasons why I at least would like to see names available 
> > earlier, and more feedback to the nomcom about people earlier is that 
> > some of this apparent intransigence (to use a prejudicial description) is 
> > human nature.  By the time the nomcom has worked its way through the 
> > tough job it has, and managed to come to agreement on a slate of 
> > candidates, the members have spent a lot of time and energy on this.  As 
> > a consequence, there is going to be very strong natural resistance to 
> > changing the plan.  This is not to insult the members or imply that they 
> > are deliberately refusing to cooperate.  It is a natural consequence of 
> > the way human beings react once they have reached tough decisions.
>
> It's true that nomcom will be resistant to change for the reason you've 
> suggested. But the nomcom will have already solicited input from as many 
> people as it sees fit. Getting more input is either redundant or it comes 
> from sources that the nomcom doesn't necessarily trust.
>
> > The corollary in my mind is that input which we want to have considered 
> > needs to get in before the final slate of candidates is selected by the nomcom.
>
> The process in RFC 2727 already ensures that. The only thing that fails 
> significantly in this process is that the people who *should* be giving 
> feedback do not for various reasons including lack of cycles.