Re: Publishing names

[Brian E Carpenter <brian@hursley.ibm.com>]

If the timescale is stretched as the draft proposes, I would accept the
status quo. But if the general consensus is for publication, or if the
timescale is not stretched, I would concur with Scott, i.e.

> > - the names of nominees who agree to stand for consideration
> > should be published

   Brian

Scott Brim wrote:
> 
> On Tue, Jul 16, 2002 09:53:10AM +0900, avri allegedly wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > At the nomcom WG meeting held in Yokohama, there was a
> > split opinion (i.e. nowhere near consensus) on the subject of
> > whether names of nominees or candidates (nominees who have been
> > selected for confirmation)  should be published.
> >
> > The opinions ranged from:
> >
> > - the status quo should be maintained and names should not be
> > published
> >
> > - the names of anyone nominated, whether they agree to the
> > nomination of not, should be published
> >
> > - the names of nominees who agree to stand for consideration
> > should be published
> 
> This one.  As already discussed, I believe it is better to publish, to
> better involve the populace.  The only question is when to publish, and
> how much.  As to when, as soon as the NomCom has gone through its
> initial solicitation stage.
> 
> One of the principles that sometimes gets lost recently, not only in
> NomCom but in WG process, is "no surprises".  It is good to make time
> for comments and reactions to initial data, rather than waiting for
> comments on decisions (when psychologically you will be inclined to
> defend them).
> 
> I'm not concerned about the possibility of a popularity contest, because
> I trust the NomCom members can think.  The reason for publishing is not
> to get popularity information, but to get information that the NomCom
> might not otherwise, including other potential candidates which the IETF
> populace might think of in reaction to seeing the list.  The IETF is now
> large, and just talking to a few friends doesn't get you far.
> 
> New names added after initial publication should not be announced by
> themselves.  Rather, the whole list should be published as it changes.
> 
> Do not publish names of those who are volunteered without agreeing.
> Since they have not agreed, they are not being considered yet, and there
> is nothing there for the general community to respond to, and it also
> opens the door to abuse.
> 
> > - a winnowed list of nominees who have agreed to stand for
> > consideration should be published.  the winnowing criteria
> > to be left up to the nomcom itself
> 
> Why leave the door open for confusion?  The criterion for publication is
> that someone is on the list for the NomCom to consider, and thus the
> community can/should react.
> 
> > - the list of candidates presented to the confirming bodies
> > should be published.
> 
> This is after decisions have been made, and therefore less desirable for
> reasons discussed above.
> 
> > As an extra dimension, there was also a recommendation that not
> > only should the names be published, but the nominees questionnaire
> > or another supporting statement should also be published.
> 
> No.  It would be nice for the community at large to see what their
> (potential) leaders think about certain issues, but the goal of
> publishing the list of nominees is not to get comments on what the
> nominees propose, it's to get comments on what the community knows of
> their abilities.  Also, the questionnaire answers can be more personal
> if the nominee knows they will be kept to the NomCom and those they work
> with.
> 
> No surprises ... Scott