candidate evaluation vs. nomcom process evaluation

[Dave Crocker <dhc@dcrocker.net>]

Leslie,

Tuesday, March 11, 2003, 4:09:13 PM, you wrote:
LD> 2/ Is the IAB's role to exercise good judgement about the
LD> qualifications of each nominee or is the IAB's role limited to
LD> process review only?

LD>    If it is the IAB's role to exercise good judgement, what are the
LD>    documented criteria for an IESG candidate ?

LD>    If it is not the IAB's role to exercise good judgement, how does
LD>    the IAB get sufficient visibility into the Nomcom process to
LD>    exercise a purely process-oversight role without breaching the
LD>    confidentiality and without intruding on Nomcom's deliberations ?


Many thanks to the IAB for putting this issue forward.  It is a very
difficult one and it seems to have been a factor in the nomcom process
from the start.

The IAB is a collection of bright, motivated, experienced people.  So
how could it be at all reasonable to restrict their review to matters
only of process?  After all, they often know candidates, and very
well.

The difficulty is in the length and complexity of the nomcom committee
work.  Nomcoms put in a great deal of time, talk to many people, and
consider choices and tradeoffs at great length.  Hence, the reasons
for a particular slate of candidates can be difficult, subtle and
fragile.

An IAB review occurs after all of that extended Nomcom work. It cannot
replicate it, both due to calendar limitations and due to resource
limitations.

But we need to remember that the IAB really DOES have quite a lot of
knowledge about the IETF and its major participants.

Let me suggest, therefore, that the way to use that expertise, without
having the IAB try to second-guess (or replicate) the Nomcom's own
work, is to have the IAB treat "process" evaluation as more than a
matter of form.  It should treat it as an evaluation of the quality of
thinking done by the nomcom.  That is, it evaluates the nomcom, not
the nomcom's choices.  It uses the choices as a way of guiding the
focus of the review.

When a nomcom makes a recommendation that is, shall we say,
"surprising" the IAB should push back, requiring that the Nomcom
explain (and defend) that choice very carefully.

This has occurred for the two Nomcom's I've been on and I am quite
certain that the knowledge of having to pass through a review of that
type helped the Nomcom to be more deliberate in its considerations.
(One time, we essentially had to re-construct and re-consider our
entire basis for a choice.  This can be de-stablilizing, to the
group's effort, but I believe it still produces a better result.)

My own sense of difficulty in the two IAB review's of nomcom
recommendation was with the manner in which the IAB and Nomcom
interacted. It was extremely formal and slow, and only went through
liaisons. Hence, it did not permit a real dialogue and, if anything,
tended to produce defensiveness in the Nomcom. (To be clear: I believe
the defensiveness comes from the design of the interaction, rather
than from the IAB's pushback.)

So I suggest that IAB review of IESG choices, and ISOC review of IAB
choices, include a conference call with a collegial discussion.

That is, it should assume that everyone is working in good faith and
has worked hard, but that a surprising choice obligates everyone to
put in extra effort, to understand the basis for that choice.

d/
--
 Dave Crocker <mailto:dcrocker@brandenburg.com>
 Brandenburg InternetWorking <http://www.brandenburg.com>
 Sunnyvale, CA  USA <tel:+1.408.246.8253>, <fax:+1.866.358.5301>