Nomcom candidate name announcement alternatives

[Dave Crocker <dcrocker@brandenburg.com>]

Folks,

The IETF originally chose to make the nomcom candidate list private, to 
protect the candidates.  If the nomcom process is changed to publish names 
we are fundamentally altering this protection.

I would like us to consider the alternatives, so that the working group 
choice is based on a reasonably clear sense of the trade-offs.  So, here is 
an initial summary of the choices.  Please point out fuzziness, errors and 
omissions. Where possible, please suggest specific wording changes.

The trade-offs are described as the benefits (PRO) that we can or might 
experience if we implement that alternative, and the detriments (CON) that 
we can or might experience.  In the case of choice #0 (the current choice) 
I have tried to summarize the benefits and detriments that we have been 
experiencing and the reasons this alternative was originally selected.

One thing is very clear to me:  None of these choices is simple; none of 
the outcomes is completely predictable; none of the likely effects is 
small.  Neither the benefits nor the problems.  Therefore, we need to make 
a change only if we are very clear about the urgent problems that we expect 
that change to fix, or the urgent benefits we expect to see.



0.      No name announcement  (The Current Choice)

        Pro:  We have lived with this choice for the entire life of the 
nomcom process.  It is designed to protect candidates' privacy, egos, 
professional standing, and other such sensitive personal factors.  This 
especially includes protecting the privacy of the nomcom choice to NOT 
renew a candidate currently holding the position being considered.

        Con:  People who are not queried by the nomcom might not know who 
is a candidate.  Those people with special knowledge of a candidate 
therefore might not know to provide it to the nomcom, and nomcom might 
therefore make a decision based on a deficient understanding of the 
capabilities and weaknesses of candidates.  The concern even goes to 
failing to nominate a good candidate.  Also one could view the current 
model of privacy about who is a candidate as a myth, because because there 
so many people must be queried for feedback.  People who are queried 
necessarily have a good idea who the candidates are.  In the context of 
having a portion of the community know this information and a portion not 
know, this encourages rumors, and other bad processes.


All.    Names made public (effects common to all proposed changes)

        PRO:  Any of the changes may result in public discussion of 
candidates and public awareness of candidates who were declined.  Essential 
information might be provided to the nomcom, about current candidates or 
candidates that should be considered. The public review could add another 
degree of validation of a candidate's qualifications, with respect to their 
ability to handle the public "heat" that is a regular part of this 
community.  The nomcom might find out whether a candidate has the requisite 
thick skin.

        CON:  Public discussion can result in public and personal attacks. 
(This is the "heat" cited above.)  This might hurt people 
professionally.  It might affect who is willing to be a candidate.  It 
might affect their future participation in the IETF.  In terms of effects 
on the nomcom process, publishing names might alter or increase 
electioneering and the efforts to manipulate the public discussion, as well 
as manipulating the resulting input to the nomcom. That is, the pool of 
potential game players is perhaps two orders of magnitude larger than we 
experience today; the IETF usually considers such a scaling to have effects 
that are worthy of concern.



1.      Announcement of all suggested candidates (before they accept)

        PRO:  All IETF participants will be able to tell whether their 
favorite candidate (or target) has been suggested and will therefore be on 
notice to offer their comments.  By publishing the names that have no 
status other than being put forward as possible candidates, there is no 
special identification of anyone as having that special status (candidate, 
final-stage candidate, or nominee).  This will limit ... 
embarrassment?  privacy violation?  leakage of what the nomcom thinks about 
the candidates?  Also, by making the publication rule really simple, it can 
be completely automatic and therefore not be a burden on the nomcom.

        CON:  Announcement at this early a stage creates an extremely long 
period of time for public debate about individuals and their 
qualifications.  Besides taking an enormous amount of energy in the open 
IETF, it could produce an enormous amount of animus, without even enjoying 
the the usual benefit of being tied to a technical debate.



2.      Announcement of candidates who have accepted

        PRO:  The same benefits of the previous choice, except that it 
entails a smaller list of names, so that it uses everyone's time more 
efficiently and insures that comments pertain to people who really are 
under consideration.

        CON:  Essentially the same concerns as the previous choice, except 
that the people being discussed in public are now known to be 
candidates.  Hence the potential for personal damage to them in greatly 
increased.


3.      Announcement of the final (short) list of candidates

        PRO:  Because this would take place much later in the process, the 
amount of time for public comment is shortened.  It would still be enough 
time to gather comments that could affect the outcome, but it would limit 
the opportunity for public debate about individuals' merits and 
deficiencies.  Also there is a view that the nomcom already obtains enough 
information to a) obtain a good list of candidates, and b) do an adequate 
job of selecting an appropriate short list of qualified candidates.  Hence 
this later stage of announcement could be more efficient and limited only 
to the candidates about whom the nomcom needs extremely thorough knowledge.

        CON:  The intensity of personal attacks on candidates would 
probably be maximal at this stage, for example by IETF participants hoping 
to knock a candidate out of the running as well as professional foes.  The 
personal and professional damage to individuals, at this point, could 
similarly be maximal.


4.      Announcement of nominated candidates, prior to confirming body approval

        PRO:  This is the last opportunity for public review prior to 
formal approval, and therefore ensures that comments are limited to public 
review for preventing extraordinary selection errors.

        CON:  In reality, announcement at this stage would be too late for 
making any changes, without massive trauma to the community.  It could also 
be seen as forcing the hand of the confirming bodies, increasing the 
community trauma if a rejection were to occur (whether justified or not).

d/

----------
Dave Crocker  <mailto:dcrocker@brandenburg.com>
Brandenburg InternetWorking  <http://www.brandenburg.com>
tel +1.408.246.8253;  fax +1.408.850.1850