Re: Nomcom candidate name announcement alternatives

[Loa Andersson <loa.andersson@utfors.se>]

Since everyone else seems to be in this mud pool, might as well
jump in.

I've two different thoughts on this
- first, we must decide if we want a fully open process or the type
  of process we have today
  with a fully open process we would need to go all the way to
  electing the ieft "officers" in general election. this in itself
  would bring more problems than it solves
  i don't see any viable middle ground

- having been through the nomcom process, it is perfectly acceptable
  when it is confidential, my belief is that very few would want to
  go through this a second time if not being elected

This said I support the status quo.

/Loa

Russ White wrote:

> Actually, I disagree.... My take on the last nomcom process was
> that many people thought we didn't take in enough input, and
> others thought we we took in too much (in terms of asking so many
> people that the confidentiality was lost). My suggestion would be
> thus:
>
> -- Publish the list of people nominated. I don't know whether
> this list should be before or after people have accepted (stated
> they are willing to serve). Actually, I don't see that it makes
> much difference which list this is, as long as it is _before_ any
> "weeding" by the nomcom.
>
> -- Create a simple web page where people may post comments about
> this list, or simply create a "public comment" mailing alias. But
> whatever comments there are, only the person making them, and
> members of the nomcom, would know the comments which are made. Do
> not make the comments themselves public. This resolves the issue
> of public debate, since there are no public records to debate
> about, only open and free input.
>
> -- The nomcom would publicly request that certain people provide
> feedback into whatever mechanism was provided.
>
> -- The nomcom would have, on the back end, some form of a
> threaded (by candidate and position) "forum" where comments from
> outside the nomcom are published (this is where a web page for
> public input would actually be preferrable).
>
> You could keep the list public, and the comments private. It's
> done all the time, and it's critical to many processes. The
> nomcom members should be smart enough to figure out how much
> weight to put on comments by various people--comments in all
> cases should not be anonymous.
>
> Russ
>
> On Tue, 16 Jul 2002, Steve Silverman wrote:
>
>
> > It seems to me that once a list of people is published, there are going to
> > be comments made about
> > some of them.  Once some comments are made, others will want to respond and
> > will want to "correct" what they perceive as false allegations.  If you
> > forbid the use of regular lists, you make it harder to correct "accidental
> > misstatements".   If you want a public process, you have to accept public
> > debate and comments.  It can't be only partly public.  I don't think there
> > is any way to limit such debate.
> >
> > It is clear to me that there are many wildly differing opinions on this
> > subject. I do not think there is any possibility of any sort of real
> > consensus and it seems to me that no change is possible at the present time.
> > There are fundamental questions about the Internet and the governing
> > authority that have not been addressed and are not likely to be addressed.
> > The Nomcom is a minor aspect of these questions.
> >
> > Steve Silverman
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: John C Klensin [mailto:john+nomcom@jck.com]
> > Sent: Tuesday, July 16, 2002 6:52 PM
> > To: Joel M. Halpern; ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com
> > Subject: Re: Nomcom candidate name announcement alternatives
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --On Tuesday, 16 July, 2002 15:39 -0400 "Joel M. Halpern"
> > <joel@stevecrocker.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> > > There is an interesting implication here that I had missed.
> > >
> > > The phrasing of these points raises the spectre of public
> > > discussion (on IETF lists) about the published individuals.  If
> > > this is likely, it would then lead almost inevitably lead to
> > > politicising the environment.  This is very bad.
> > >
> > > However, rather than concluding that we should not publish the
> > > names, I conclude that we should put in a very strong policy
> > > prohibiting this discussion on any IETF list.  While this would
> > > not stop all discussion, it should be sufficient to prevent
> > > serious politicing.
> > >
> > > (And those who color me naive for not having seen this problem
> > > sooner can chortle quietly.  But publish anyway.)
> > Joel,
> >
> > It seems to me that this suggestion is sensible (or not)
> > independent of whether the names are published (under the
> > proposed scenario or some other one).
> >
> >    john
> >
> >
> >
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------
> > To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription
> > manager: <http://lists.elistx.com/subscribe>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------
> > To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription
> > manager: <http://lists.elistx.com/subscribe>
>
> __________________________________
> riw@cisco.com CCIE <>< Grace Alone
>
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription
> manager: <http://lists.elistx.com/subscribe>


--
    Loa Andersson
    Chief Architect,
    Utfors Research, Architecture and Future Lab (URAX)
    Utfors AB
    Råsundavägen 12
    Box 525, 169 29 Solna
    Office          +46 8 5270 2000
    Office direct   +46 8 5270 5038
    Mobile          +46 70 848 5038
    Email           loa.andersson@utfors.se
    WWW             www.utfors.se