John, Spencer,
The issue you raise about different people having different amount of information is a valid one. I originally thought of this problem mainly from the point of view of an individual being able to provide good input, but it would indeed be fair that all IETFers have the same ability to provide input.
--Jari
Spencer Dawkins wrote:
Just to agree with JohnL,
NOMCOM has been good about soliciting feedback, but I still think that we miss out on useful feedback because IETF members cannot reliably say who is a candidate and who is not. Some candidates have sent around BCC: mails, from time-to-time, saying that they are a candidate & would appreciate folks to send comments to NOMCOM. This doesn't seem like a good way for getting information 'public.'
I've served as a WG chair, and as a member of the General Area Directorate, so I'm one of the people that NOMCOM was actively seeking input from ("this is a list of the people who have been nominated for X Area Director, plus a couple of ringers, please tell us what you think we should know that would help us make a better decision").
My point is that I *have* seen a complete list of nominations, including a couple of ringers, for specific AD positions, and I *have* seen a complete list of nominations for IAB positions.
This is not a bad thing (the AD positions were in areas I was working closely with). The less-than-desirable part is that my input on unannounced candidates was based on more information about who was being considered than was generally available. I could say "that person would be the greatest disaster for the IETF since ...", and people who disagreed with my input don't even know the person is being considered ... unless they also got the same list, or unless that specific person happened to ask others to provide NOMCOM input.
Hardly seems fair, does it?
For the last two years, I've met with the NOMCOM representatives and gone through the list of every IAB/IESG member that's up for renewal, so it's not like people don't TRY to provide good input (positive and negative). But it's difficult to provide input on unannounced candidates, unless they "out" themselves.
Are we supposed to send a list of notorious Internet kooks, just in case one of them has been nominated for something?
In the absence of facts, there are lots of rumors about whether a specific IESG / IAB member is stepping down or not; reasons why; etc. This doesn't seem to be an optimal process, IMO.
I've also had conversations with ADs who decided to step down, then decided not to, then decided to step down (lather, rinse, repeat). Private sampling doesn't seem to provide reliable information, even when the sampling is direct-to-the-intermittent-candidate.
... and, to go a tiny bit closer toward the edge ... saying that we believe someone can serve successfully as an AD for two years (and hopefully for four, since it takes a year to come up to speed, we are told), but is too sensitive to be nominated publically for the position, seems silly. If someone cares what people think that much, how can the same person serve with integrity after being selected?
Spencer
_______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf