Re: Nomcom candidate name announcement alternatives

[Scott Brim <swb@employees.org>]

On Wed, Jul 17, 2002 04:35:59PM +0900, Dave Crocker allegedly wrote:
> 1.  We no longer have to worry about missing input.  Worrying about 
> nomcom's missing input is a real issue today.  As I said, I do not believe 
> this concern is valid, but the confirming bodies and the community are not 
> convinced that nomcom's information is adequate, and it is essential that 
> the confirming bodies and the community be comfortable.

Right.  The peasants may be revolting, but if we're going to be true to
our principles we need to acknowledge their existence.  Alternatively we
could change our principles.

> 2.  Every once in awhile, someone DOES have an interesting tidbit to add to 
> the mix of knowledge about a candidate.  These tidbits can add texture and 
> flavor to the picture of a candidate and that enhanced information can 
> improve the ability to resolve subtle concerns and close choices.
> 
> So, I tend to prefer publishing the list of candidates that make the final 
> cut.  That will permit enough time for people with important insight to 
> provide it.  It also will limit the public exposure to the very few people 
> who are in final contention to hold a public position that requires they 
> have a tough hide.  And it permits nomcom to use the information 
> efficiently.  It doesn't carry the process trauma that comes with having to 
> reverse a selection.

But this doesn't satisfy either #1 or #2.  Re #1, 'the people' would
still feel ignored.  Re #2, If you're going to use these rare tidbits to
"resolve subtle concerns and close choices", you need them before you
make those choices.  

... Scott, in just about the middle of the IPsec room.