Re: Nomcom candidate name announcement alternatives

[Dave Crocker <dcrocker@brandenburg.com>]

At 04:22 PM 7/17/2002 +0900, Scott Brim wrote:
> > Letting candidates define the rules is just plain bad.
> >
> > Either the community feels that we need to publish names or the community
> > feels we do not.  One rule for everyone.
>
> Dave, are you attempting to set up a highly polarized situation in order
> to more easily knock down the (pushed to extreme) alternative you don't
> like?  No need to confuse the goals with the mechanisms.  The idea of
> publishing names already makes everyone somewhat uncomfortable.  I was
> told that comfort isn't the issue, dishonor is.  It's okay to seek a
> balance.

Scott, I am attempting to keep things simple and useful.  We are trying to 
define a procedure and we all know that complicated, contingent procedures 
don't work well.

In the case of human processes, it is particularly bad to give over control 
of an evaluation mechanism to the person being evaluated.  Allowing a 
candidate to opt-in or -out of the disclosure process gives them a control 
of the community feedback process.  That is a very bad idea.

With respect to different cultures, we need to do our best to be 
respectful, but we need to be respectful in a way that does not cripple our 
ability to do work.

The issue of dishonor is clearly important.  On the other hand, we have our 
own culture and anyone who holds one of our public offices is already going 
to have to work within a culture that is highly at odds with many other 
cultures -- for example, many of the asian cultures, many of the other 
standards bodies cultures, etc.

For those making procedural suggestions that are sensitive to culture, let 
me ask:  Do the people in any of those cultures have open elections?  Are 
the losers publicly known?  I believe the answer is yes.

d/

----------
Dave Crocker  <mailto:dcrocker@brandenburg.com>
Brandenburg InternetWorking  <http://www.brandenburg.com>
tel +1.408.246.8253;  fax +1.408.850.1850