Re: A proposal for publishing nominee names

[Scott Brim <swb@employees.org>]

On Tue, Jul 16, 2002 06:59:37PM -0400, Scott Bradner allegedly wrote:
> it seems to me that the proposal to publish the names of nominees reduces the
> flexibility of the nomcom to do its job.
> 
> assuming that the basic proposal is to publish names when nominations are
> received
> 
> Q1- can the nomcom select someone whose name has not been published?
> 	if yes then the value of publishing names is reduced
> 	if no then the following may be a problem
> 
> one of the tasks that the nomcoms I know about has been to beat the bushes
> for candidates in addition to the ones that others have nominated.  this
> process continues up until the last minute - well past the official end of
> the nominations period
> 
> if this continues to be the case and names are being published and the nomcom
> has to publish the names of any candidates they turn up late in the game then
> anyone watching the list of names  will be getting information giving away
> nomcom thinking - the closer to the decision point the more that new names
> give away the thinking
> 
> in either case it seems to me that the nomcom's flexibility is reduced in
> that it will be inhibited from finding the best candidate if the initial sent
> of nominees turns out to not to be seen as all that good
> 	either they telegraph their selection (if publication is required in
> order for someone to be selected) or they will shy away from getting the heat
> from picking someone not on the published list

First, wrt the initial (perhaps rhetorical) question: names would be
published soon after the nominee agrees to the nomination, i.e. becomes
a viable potential candidate.  No, the NomCom couldn't pick someone
whose name had never been published.

Yes, some NomCom members might be inhibited by having the community know
what they are thinking.  I hope those NomCom members would not volunteer
again.  What is really gained from secrecy here?  We've already talked
about possible embarrassment for nominees, and that's a problem that we
haven't been able to quantify, but it's not the one at issue here
anyway.  The question is how much the NomCom members' would be
constrained by having their behavior and thinking exposed.  At the time
we're talking about, the NomCom and the confirming bodies have already
been given all-but-absolute power over who will be the new IESG/IAB.
They cannot be disrupted except to the extent that they allow themselves
to be.  The only thing they possibly suffer by having their process
exposed is that people form opinions about how competent they are.  If
they are on the NomCom to serve the IETF, then the IETF is actually
better served by clearer understanding of their competence.  The NomCom
members might actually learn something about themselves too.  Keeping
things secret is often easier, but we only want to do so reluctantly.
Note, we're keeping the *reasons* for decisions confidential, which is
absolutely correct.  

...Scott