RE: Nomcom candidate name announcement alternatives

[David Allan <dallan@nortelnetworks.com>]

Title: RE: Nomcom candidate name announcement alternatives

I agree with the "comments private" part. The goal is to solicit feedback, not debate. It is not the role of the commenters to correct what others say. The idea is to provide the NOMCOM with sufficient sources of information that potential malicious misinformation can be spotted. I would expect all feedback provided to the NOMCOM to be confidential, and I get the feeling not everyone beleives this would happen.

cheers
Dave

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Russ White [mailto:ruwhite@cisco.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, July 16, 2002 8:55 PM
> To: Steve Silverman
> Cc: John C Klensin; Joel M. Halpern; ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com
> Subject: RE: Nomcom candidate name announcement alternatives
>
>
>
> 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>
>