Re: Nomcom candidate name announcement alternatives

[Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>]

On Tue, Jul 16, 2002 at 08:54:44PM -0400, 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). 

I'd agree with this characterization.   

And that's why I believe the list of nominated people should be
published.  The IETF has grown.  It's big.  It's too big to assume
that everyone on nomcom is going to know all of the right people to
ask.  This leads to things like a mechanical, "send e-mail to all I-D
authors and wg chairs", which is a **very** large list of people, but
still isn't guaranteed to get all of the right people in a particular
area.

And despite the fact that this past year, we sent a blinded list (and
we added people who were nominated, but whom we were not seriously
considering as our way of adding "noise" to the list --- the end
result wasn't much different from everyone who was nominated) to a
very large list of people in each area, there wasn't much in the way
of public discussion.  The assertion that a public list automatically
leads to public discussion and politics isn't a valid assumption to
make, in my opinion, and this past year is certainly an example of
this.

						- Ted