Actually, I'm not sure I agree (that it's a good plan, or better to do it this way than update the BCP).
When the NomCom WG was discussing this as part of creating RFC3777, I was initially a proponent of the "publish the candidate list!" perspective. I will admit to having been swayed by the arguments that it increases the likelihood of scaring off potential candidates, requires the freezing the candidate list, exposes the nomcom to second guessing, and inevitably provokes electioneering.
Further, I also wonder what happens *after* the NomCom selections are done. I.e., how many people will not have complaints taken seriously because "they're just mad they were not selected".
So,
1/ I'm not sure it's better to have a website that "interested people" can subscribe to at the cost of agreeing to maintain confidentiality than what we have today or going to a full open model. It has the chance of significantly increasing the "whisper group", and doesn't really solve any of the negatives listed above.
2/ If we want to change the model, we should update the BCP, and take the time to consciously re-evaluate the upsides and downsides we know to exist with closed or open candidate lists.
If we (the IETF community) genuinely want more openness, we should do that, and get on with dealing with the negative sides we know will exist. Let's not just go halfway and get the worst of both models.
Leslie.
Brian E Carpenter wrote:
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
_______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf