> Please understand the argument that was made strongly while > RFC 3777 was in WG discussion: there is reason to believe that > a substantial fraction of the potential candidates would *not* > volunteer if they were entering a public race. It's hard to > judge the validity of that argument, but it's certain that > publishing the names would change the whole process in > unpredictable ways. => Sure I know about the argument, I just don't agree with it. Please note that I'm not suggesting an "election race". There is no way to control that of course and it might happen inadvertently, but my point is that in the long term it's better to do that and have an open process that self-corrects. There is no way of measuring how useful something is without having a consistent open process. So at least we'd know how to improve once we have a measurable process. BTW, other SDOs have a similar election process with varying degrees of success (of course measuring success deoends on how you set the goals). > > One way to open up the process would be to allow any participant > to personally request a list of candidates from Nomcom, against > a personal non-disclosure promise. (Not my idea; this was suggested > during last week's IESG retreat.) => If we do that we may as well put the list on the web. How do we define "participant"? Hesham > > Brian > =========================================================== This email may contain confidential and privileged material for the sole use of the intended recipient. Any review or distribution by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient please contact the sender and delete all copies. =========================================================== _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf