Re: Staus of the Nomcom WG

[Brian E Carpenter <brian@hursley.ibm.com>]

in line...

Avri Doria wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> 
> Since we are not holding a meeting this time, it seemed a
> good idea to send the group my perception of our status.
> 
> I think we are close to the time for a WG last call.  I
> certainly want to make sure we are totally finished before
> a new Nomcom is chosen.
> 
> Recently draft-ietf-nomcom-rfc2727bis-03.txt was put out.
> In addition to several minor errors which are currently
> being corrected, there were two larger issues:
> 
> 1. Whether the prohibition for voting members of
> NomCom from being selected to serve on the IAB/IESG was now
> lengthened to 2 years because of the provision that requires a
> NomCom to sit longer then 12 months if there is a need to
> fill a late season interim vacancy.
> The consensus, as I understood it, is that this should
> not be the case, and that text should be added to clarify
> that the prohibition was only for selections made by the
> NomCom in which a person is a voting member; i.e. 1 year.

I think that's right.

> 
> 2. Whether the occasional practice of giving incumbents
> performance  feedback that is obtained incidentally
> during interviews, should be formalized in any way.
> 
> A inconclusive discussion on this came up in the design
> team.  There is nothing in 2727 which either permits this
> or prohibits this as long as confidentiality is maintained.
> 
> Tradition and 2727 has left such decisions to the NomCom
> itself.  This may mean that such feedback is either not
> passed on or has marginal value when it is.  It is
> also possible that in some cases, the nature of the feedback
> may betray the source and this threatens confidentiality. Also
> if such a practice where formalized it might change the amount
> and quality of feedback; whether for better or worse.
> 
> I see several  paths we can follow in dealing with this issue:
> 
> A- Decide that the status quo achieves the right balance and
> leave things as they are.  This is the default condition if
> there is not strong consensus for change.

Would be acceptable.

> 
> B- Decide that this feedback is important but in keeping with
> the tradition of leaving as much up to the individual NomCom as
> possible add a statement on this to the oral traditions.

I think this is slightly better - make it plain that the NomCom
is entitled to give such feedback, but not obliged.

> C- Decide that this feedback is critical and deserves a rule
> requiring it.

No. We are not running a personnel system here.

> 
> D- Decide that this practice is a risk to confidentiality
> or negative in some other way and that it should be discouraged
> in the oral traditions.

No. There is no special threat to confidentiality, and most 
people welcome feedback.

> 
> E- Decide that this practice is a threat to confidentiality
> or negative in some other way and that it should be forbidden
> by the rules.

No (same reasons).
   
   Brian