RE: Liaisons interoperation with NOMCOM members

["Bound, Jim" <Jim.Bound@hp.com>]

Donald,

Error Return-code not NULL.  Not sure how it happened I do not state how
this is done nor have opinion it should be chair.  I believe that is
upto the WG and those consistently participating in this exercise.  My
reason for being here is to bring the issue and stay here till it is
done or not done and leave, or just leave out of frustration vs cost of
my time.  So it sounds correct to me it is the nomcom body that does
this not the chair.  And I don't even think it will be used hopefully
ever.  But, if it is needed we gave the NOMCOM this in those extreme
circumstances as you put it and that on our part is quite prudent.

On IETF more like business.  I don't think so.   The one business
principle I am trying to get the community to see is the issue of
time-to-market.  This is not my turf I come here to build standards or
make sure ones I know will have the best chance of correct
implementation.  My turf is else where and it is in industry and much
different game. The IETF is not perceived today as open, able to keep up
in the 21st century as a standards body, holds up technology, and that
is my view of what I hear.  But that is just me.  When we are done with
this discussion I will leave and it pains me as much to hear that which
is counter to all my views as it is for many here to hear my views.

So lets just make a decision and move on one way or the other if that is
possible.

Unless I get a direct question I have nothing else to say or defend at
this point.

Not to Donald ....................
P.S. and for some don't come up to me in the IETF and tell me "Jim I
really thought what you said was right to let you know or it was wrong"
Please I won't respect you and I might vomit on you.  I respect those
more who completely disagree with me and discuss it, and have the nerve
to speak up and defend their point of view publicly.  Thats the IETFers
I respect even if I completely disagree with them.

Regards,
/jim

Regards,
/jim

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Donald Eastlake 3rd [mailto:dee3@torque.pothole.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, May 27, 2003 10:16 PM
> To: ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com
> Subject: RE: Liaisons interoperation with NOMCOM members
> 
> 
> Hi Jim,
> 
> On Tue, 27 May 2003, Bound, Jim wrote:
> 
> > Date: Tue, 27 May 2003 01:22:30 -0400
> > From: "Bound, Jim" <Jim.Bound@hp.com>
> > To: Donald Eastlake 3rd <dee3@torque.pothole.com>,
> >      ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com
> > Subject: RE: Liaisons interoperation with NOMCOM members
> > 
> > Hi Donald,
> > 
> > I think I see where we differ.  I can see CONGRUITY of course.
> > 
> > I don't want to trust or not trust the Liaisons to do the right or
> > wrong thing.  I just want the clause that gives the NOMCOM 
> options and
> > for them to understand why those options are there.  Of
> course we can
> > as community members always send mail with input to the NOMCOM we
> > don't trust the Liaisons, and I have never done that.
> 
> Well, we seem to be just arguing about the wording. The
> nomcom has options now. Adding a sentence about this to make 
> it more obvious is fine with me. But I can't see why you want 
> it to be at the whim of the nomcom chair. Since you don't 
> have much trust of the Liaisons, why do you trust the chair?
> 
> > I also feel that in the IETF it is harder to remove an IESG or IAB
> > member that it is to remove a congressman or senator in the 
> government I
> > live with in the world I live in today.   I feel the IETF 
> is run like an
> > academic institution and that is not going to work anymore
> is my gut
> > feeling.  We cannot overhaul the entire process but we can
> put checks
> > and balances in and the proposed text by Brian in fact does that.
> 
> Opinions differ on such things. Many feel the businesses are
> becoming too dominent in the IETF.
> 
> > I would like to hear more arguments that state this can be done as
> > opposed to we can trust them?  The proposed wording would 
> not be used
> > unless it was needed and if it is needed then so be it.
> 
> Again, I'm puzzled as to why you want this "need" to be determined by
> the chair rather than nomcom voting members.
> 
> Thanks,
> Donald
> 
> > Don't forget I am compromising here.  I don't want the IESG or IAB
> > members even on the or near the NOMCOM and believe all interaction 
> > with them should be Q and A.  If I fight this in the 
> greater community
> > that will be my posture and suggestion for IETF wide discussion. I
> > think if this WG can do a simple thing like Brian suggested 
> it should
> > cover the issue and I rest my case.  But if not then it
> requires much
> > more discussion and a bunch of related threads within the area of
> > conflict of Interest.
> > 
> > /jim
> > 
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Donald Eastlake 3rd [mailto:dee3@torque.pothole.com]
> > > Sent: Monday, May 26, 2003 11:14 PM
> > > To: ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com
> > > Subject: RE: Liaisons interoperation with NOMCOM members
> > > 
> > > 
> > > Hi Jim,
> > > 
> > > On Mon, 26 May 2003, Bound, Jim wrote:
> > > 
> > > > Date: Mon, 26 May 2003 18:59:51 -0400
> > > > From: "Bound, Jim" <Jim.Bound@hp.com>
> > > > To: Donald Eastlake 3rd <dee3@torque.pothole.com>,
> > > >      ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com
> > > > Subject: RE: Liaisons interoperation with NOMCOM members
> > > > 
> > > > Donald,
> > > > 
> > > > If two voting nomcom members are discussing a candidate and
> > > the merits
> > > > of that candidate to be selected by that nomcom as input to IETF

> > > > nomcom process, should a Liaison participate in the
> > > discussion about
> > > > that candidate pro or con?
> > > 
> > > I would say rarely. I don't recall any of the liaisons doing what 
> > > I would generally call "participating in discussion" in the sense 
> > > of arguing much.  But quite likely at some time one of them said 
> > > something like, when it seemed that candidate X was going to be on

> > > the short list or the like, "I think X and IESG member Y with whom

> > > they will have to work have had some difficulties about Z. You 
> > > should consider asking each of them about this." or something like

> > > that.
> > > 
> > > > I emphatically believe that if the Liaison does and was not
> > > asked to
> > > > participate that is a conflict of interest?
> > > 
> > > Pffah. All you need to do is crank your conflict-of-interest 
> > > sensitivity up high enough and you can paralyze any organization. 
> > > I was meaning to reply to that effect to your other message wherin

> > > your go on and on about "potential conflict of interest". Everyone

> > > in the IETF has potential conflicts of interest. They may have 
> > > company or academic commitment to certain ideas or protocols. Why 
> > > do we let authors make comments in discussion about their very own
> > > drafts? Isn't that a clear conflict of interest? Etc. Etc.
> > > 
> > > What about potential CONGRUITY of interest? How about the theory
> > > that
> > > Liaisons most probably want the IAB and IESG and the nomcom 
> > > and IETF to 
> > > work well and produce good results?
> > > 
> > > > The issue is would the simple text Brian suggested give
> recourse
> > > > to
> > > > prevent this problem from happening.
> > > 
> > > I don't like Brian's wording for two reasons: Because the 
> > > exclusion of a Liaison should be an extraordinary step while 
> > > someone could read his wording to mean you can do it anytime you 
> > > like on a whim, and because it makes it at the discretion of the 
> > > chair while I think it should be a nomcom decision.
> > > 
> > > > Example.  From situtation above.  Chair of Nomcom states:  Dear,

> > > > Liaisons we are about to engage in a debate on the specific
> > > candidates
> > > > and we feel your presence here is not required for this
> > > dicussion and
> > > > would like to do this just with the voting members.
> > > >
> > > > What is wrong with the above?
> > > 
> > > If it's really true that "we" don't want the Liaisons, the nomcom 
> > > can vote to exclude them under the current draft or, indeed, vote 
> > > to expell them if there was a chronic problem. If it's not true 
> > > that "we" don't want the Liaisons, then the chair is lying.
> > > 
> > > Suppose your suggested exclusion happens. In the discussion, a 
> > > member of the nomcom says "The IESG consists of technical 
> > > geniuses. I'm sure they make all of their decisions in a purely 
> > > logical fashion, probably using the first order predicate 
> > > calculus. Candidate X is a real whiz at logic as well as being the

> > > world expert on facet Q of routing. True, candidate X only speaks 
> > > Aramaic and doesn't seem to have any charisma, but since the IESG 
> > > is a techncial body, I'm sure they are the best candidate."
> > > Wouldn't it be OK for the IESG Liaison to butt in and point 
> > > out that, while technical competance is required, the bulk of 
> > > the job an every AD is interpersonal relations? That the IESG 
> > > actually doesn't decide everything using the first order 
> > > predicate calculus?
> > > 
> > > > /jim
> > > 
> > > 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
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > ----------------------------------------------------------------
> > > To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription
> > > manager: <http://lists.elistx.com/subscribe>
> > > 
> > 
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------
> > To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription
> > manager: <http://lists.elistx.com/subscribe>
> > 
> 
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription
> manager: <http://lists.elistx.com/subscribe>
>