Soliman, Hesham wrote:
> At 01:10 PM 5/4/2005, Soliman, Hesham wrote:
> > > 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"?
>
> There is a difference between having participants who are
> interested in
> providing feedback ask for a copy of the list, with a promise of
> confidentiality, and give feedback - versus having that information
> publicly available. This sounds useful to me.
>
> I don't think that "participant" really needs to be defined.
> Those who
> will be interested are those who are involved. Currently,
> to obtain input
> from a more diverse set of people, Nomcomm has to guess who
> is appropriate
> to ask & hope that a reasonable sampling of them will be
> willing/interested
> in responding.
=> Ok, since I think it will lead to the same effect (widely known nominees)
I'm fine with that suggestion.
Personally, I don't see the difference between doing what you describe
above and sending the list of nominees to this mailing list. But either
option is definitely better than what we have today IMHO.
One difference is that we wouldn't have to update the BCP, since there
would be no overt breach of confidentiality. So next year's NomCom
could simply do this without further bureaucracy.
I'm going to ask this year's Nomcom chair to see if this year's
candidates can answer the question "would you have run if your name
had been made public?"
Brian
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf