Re: Liaisons interoperation with NOMCOM members

[Donald Eastlake 3rd <dee3@torque.pothole.com>]

Dave,

On Sat, 24 May 2003, Dave Crocker wrote:

> Date: Sat, 24 May 2003 12:16:25 -0700
> From: Dave Crocker <dhc@dcrocker.net>
> Reply-To: Dave Crocker <dcrocker@brandenburg.com>
> To: Donald Eastlake 3rd <dee3@torque.pothole.com>
> Cc: ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com
> Subject: Re: Liaisons interoperation with NOMCOM members
> 
> Donald,
> 
> DE3> I have never encoutered any problem, as a member of serveral NOMCOMs or
> DE3> chair of one, with Liaisons.
> 
> Whereas others (yes, including me) *have* encountered some problems.
> 
> And the really interesting part about the problems is that they flowed
> from some very natural situations in which everybody was working hard at
> being helpful.
> 
> In other words, this is not about nefarious intent and it is not even
> about liaisons who are personally problematic.
> 
> It is about the potential for distorting the process with nothing but
> the best of intentions.

I never said anything about "nefarious intent". If something is a
distortion is a value judgement.

> Liaisons inherently have an extremely large amount of power. They are
> the experts. They are the folks doing the job of running the IETF. They
> deserve the respect the rest of the committee gives them.

Power? Liaisons have less official "power" than voting nomcom member in
that they can't even vote on candidates.  They might or might not have
more influence, depending on the other members of the nomcom.

> But liaisons who are too active in the process will naturally convert
> "respect" to become "deference". And anything that causes Nomcom members
> to defer to the Liaisons spells the end of the independence that is
> essential in the Nomcom process.

"Deference" or "resentment". The nomcom process is not and never was 
intended to be an isolated independent exercise is some dream world. 
The nomcom is supposed to do its best to reflect the IETF community 
including the IAB and IESG.

> When we have a Nomcom that is substantially laced with highly
> experienced IETF people, there is at least a counterbalancing force. The
> influence of Liaisons can still be at least distracting, but at least it
> is mitigated.
> 
> When the Nomcom is notably less experienced, the influence has nothing
> moderating it.

Let's see here. The Liaisons are fine if there is an the nomcom that has
other experienced members. But if the nomcom has, due to some fluke,
nothing but inexperienced members (and, presumably, an ineffective
chair), then it is better for the nomcom to flounder in inexperience and
ignorance and make inexperineced and ignorant choices than, under those
circumstances, for the Liaisons to have more influence than they might
have with an experience nomcom.  That's an interesting point of view but
I don't agree.

> A Nomcom process needs to be pristine.

I consider the above statement to be essentially content free. All real
world organizational structure decisions are compromises with good and
bad aspects. The only selection process I would consider "pristine"  
would be one that was completely random and or had only purely object
criterial. But this would produce a poor IAB and IESG. A good part of
the job of IAB and IESG members is interpersonal relations and there is
no way for their selection to, as practical matter, be other than
subjective.

> Having Liaisons who participate in candidate and community interviews,
> who participate actively in the direct Nomcom deliberations and who take
> partisan positions for or against various candidates is simply not
> appropriate.

It's up to the nomcom whether Liaisons do interviews on behalf of the
nomcom and report back. I tend to agree that they shouldn't but I don't
see a need for a rule here. As for participating in deliberations and
taking a position, it's up to the other members and, primarily, the
chair to see that things are handled in a balanced fashion.

And note that I never said Liaiaon's couldn't be excluded from some 
nomcom activities. Just that I think that should only be done under 
extraordinary circumstances.

> >>   Bottom line IESG or
> >> IAB should not have any extra or more influence on the actual decision
> >> than anyone else that NOMCOM will speak with in the community.
> 
> DE3> This is nonsense.
> 
> And therein lies the core issue.  Should the IESG and IAB have more
> leverage than the rest of the community, when choosing folks to work on
> the IAB or IESG?
>
> My own view is that it is nonsense to think that the needs and desires
> of the rest of the community are less important.

What I meant to say was that I would certainly expect a Liaison to have
more influence than the average member of the IETF community. More than
the *average member*, not more than the entire rest of the IETF
community.

> DE3> One of the reasons the IAB and IESG Liaison are
> DE3> present is so that their experience as to how the IAB and IESG actually
> DE3> operate can be called on.
> 
> That's a reporting job.  Not a lobbying job.

It's entirely possible for something to be discussed in the nomcom for 
which input about IAB/IESG procedures/experience would be useful without 
the nomcom realizing this. The Liaisons should be present, except under 
very unusual circumstances, and should be able to speak up.

If a Liaison is really perceived as a problem, there has always been a
procedure whereby the nomcom can kick someone out of the nomcom,
including the Liaisons, forcing the body they are form to pick a new
Liaison.

Thanks,
Donald
======================================================================
 Donald E. Eastlake 3rd                       dee3@torque.pothole.com
 155 Beaver Street              +1-508-634-2066(h) +1-508-851-8280(w)
 Milford, MA 01757 USA                   Donald.Eastlake@motorola.com

> It is about information, not "influence."
> 
> d/
> 
> ps.  Personally I'm not particularly concerned about the Liaisons'
> presence as much as their activity.