Re: Publishing names

[Igor Faynberg <faynberg@bell-labs.com>]

If only the NomCom is to select, what is the point of publishing the
names?  If X wants a position and is elected, X's name will be published
anyway. If X is not elected, the populace will deduce that X was not
good enough for the NomCom. That might prevent Ys and Zs from
self-nominating or accepting nominations in the future, making the pool
of (potentially good) nominees smaller. These are two bad outcomes. But
where is the good one? How will the "populace" benefit?

I am all for status quo.

Igor


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 Do not publish names of those who are volunteered without agreeing.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
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription
> manager: <http://lists.elistx.com/subscribe>