Hi,
Some comments on the Nomcom related topics:
"Inexperienced people on Nomcom"
My experience was that most, if not all, of the people in this year's Nomcom are quite experienced in the IETF processes and care about the IETF. We have, I think, at least 4 WG chairs, and most if not all members have gone through the RFC process as an editor/author. The IETF could consider revising the selection process to ensure that similarly experienced people will be on future Nomcoms, but I think that has the potential downside of decreasing the pool even more, and might also result in same old faces being on Nomcom again and again!
Note that many people are not even interested in providing input/feedback on current ADs or potential candidates, much less interested in serving on Nomcom (the common answer to not providing feedback: I am not interested in the politics; I work mostly with the other AD :-)).
"Influence of Liaison Members"
Yes, I do agree that the liaisons have a good amount of influence. But, there is also a counterbalancing process, namely, providing input to Nomcom via email (anonymously if necessary): I for one would give equal importance to the input received from the community, especially if the input is backed up with examples: e.g., AD x had Zillion Discuss's and most of his/her comments are only disruptive, for instance eg1: " ", eg2: " ". That will raise a flag, so Nomcom members can pay extra attention to the AD in question.
That leads into this most important point:
"Complain about an AD, but also nominate candidates who are interested in the job" or 'there were no other choices' might well be true
As the title indicates, it is not sufficient to just complain about an AD (I guess it might be sufficient in the "Recall" process), it is also necessary to provide a pool of, or just one for that matter, candidates who are interested and qualified. Yes, I have real examples. (May I suggest that Nomcom procedures be revised to make the final candidate list, or at least the number of interested candidates for each position, be made public?)
Even when the Nomcom does not replace an AD, I am told that the Nomcom chair provides a compilation of the feedback from the community to the IESG. In the future, it might be worthwhile to store a copy of the feedback for consideration of the Nomcom considering the same candidates for a future term:
% Complaints about an AD, but not enough to replace him/her ---> feedback provided ---2 yrs later ---> work with the previous "state" as opposed to starting from scratch.
Perhaps it is time to tweak the Nomcom process a little bit and write down some of the advice that chairs seem to be handing down (recall that past chair is one of the non-voting members).
regards, Lakshminath
Dave Crocker wrote:
I'm certainly silly enough to stand up and say such a thing if I thought it were true and if I thought that I had no other recourse.
An argument made in this thread is that nomcom is ineffective. I was
assuming, perhaps incorrectly,that you subscribed to that view.
Most years, I put my name into the nomcom list. I've been on nomcom twice.
I believe in the process, but I also believe it needs significant changing.
The current design of the nomcom process works well when there is a large percentage of the volunteer pool that has extensive experience with both the technology and the IETF process. This makes it likely that a useful portion of the resulting nomcom will be savvy about IETF issues.
Over the years, that percentage has gone down dramatically. This has resulted in recent nomcoms that have very little real IETF process experience among the voting members.
That is a guarantee that a) those voting will be naive, and b) that the non-voting members -- ie, the representatives from existing IETF management -- will have undue sway.
Again, there have been proposals to make changes to the process, but they have gotten predictably derailed.
If you
come to the conclusion that nomcom doesn't work and are still interested
in fixing the problem, it seems like you have to show people that nomcom
doesn't work. I don't know how to do that in a fair and reasonable way
without specifics.
I did that, Sam. But I chose to do it without pointing at specific nomcom decisions that were a mistake, since I'd rather focus on the issues than get sidetracked by all the outrage at personal attacks. (Do you see a double-bind, here? Get criticized for personal attacks if I'm specific. Get criticized for vagueness if I don't.)
So, instead, I am trying to point out both clear and direct design flaws, and citing patterns of concern that have been expressed.
When there is a pattern of concern, there is a problem that needs fixing.
If you do think nomcom is effective then you are completely right that
telling nomcom confidentially about problems with particular ADs is a fine
way to go about making change.
Actually, the degree of confidentiality in the current problem is a serious problem. First of all, how can the average participant know who to make comments on? Second, I will repeat that the social barrier against making explicit criticisms is really quite high. The problem with your own willingness to express your views -- or mine, or many others -- is that it makes us entirely insensitive to the position of "average" participants.
Further, the confidentiality ensures that a dialogue about concerns does not happen.
So, I chose to cite a common rationale used by the nomcom ("there were no other choices") and suggest that the regular occurrence of that rationale is sufficient indication of a deep, serious problem that needs addressing.
I think however that you and I disagree about how to conduct
organizational introspection. It is certainly a topic on which reasonable
people disagree.
I suspect our experience base is rather different.
I'll close with one thought about RFC 3774. As far as I can tell, section
2.6 does not actually make the claim that ADs were abusing their discuss
power; it claims that there was a strong perception ADs were doing so.
SAM!! -- In the real world of organizational process, you are making a distinction without a difference. I fully understand the nature of the distinction you are raising, and I think it is an important question to ask, but it is NOT reasonable to have that question derail efforts to make change.
When a community holds a perception that there is a problem, then there is a problem.
The solution to that problem is *not* to change how discusses work. The
solution is to gather the necessary data to determine whether the
perception reflects reality or whether we have a communication/education
problem.
As I said, our base of experience with organizational and political processes is clearly quite different.
I think we're making strides in that direction. The tracker helps a lot.
No we are not. Not it does not.
It has nothing at all to do with the kind of issues I've been raising.
The predilection for confusing administrative change with changes to underlying process has been an effective way to avoid dealing with real issues.
Changes in IESG culture help too. There is low tolerance for poorly
specified discusses right now and very low tolerance for discusses that
have not been written up.
Hmmm. Well, now that you cite that, I do realize that those issuing a Discuss are far more accountable now than they used to be. In olden times, it sometimes was not even possible to find out who issued the Discuss!
However, the mere fact of a single-AD veto is the problem.
That we now are assured of knowing who is doing the veto merely means that we can engage in infinite, unproductive exchanges about their concerns. There is no way to really counter the veto, when it is silly, other than an appeal.
At the least, an appeal should occur only after extensive effort to resolve issues in other ways. The result is that, at the least, there will be -- and is -- significant delay.
But again, please remember that going against IETF management is extremely intimidating for most folks.
d/ --- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking +1.408.246.8253 dcrocker a t ... WE'VE MOVED to: www.bbiw.net
_______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf