I think that what is needed here is transparency, the problem is not the outcome, it's the way the outcome is arrived at. I think that it is equally important to have the same level of transparency when WG chairs are appointed. The WG should be told when a vacancy is coming up and there should be an open call for volunteers. I don't think that we would end up with different chairs but people would feel a lot more involved than they do at present when a chair suddenly gets parachuted in without the group even knowing that a vacancy existed. > -----Original Message----- > From: ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx [mailto:ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx] On > Behalf Of Danny McPherson > Sent: Wednesday, May 11, 2005 3:31 PM > To: ietf@xxxxxxxx > Subject: Re: Complaining about ADs to Nomcom (Re: Voting (again)) > > > > On May 9, 2005, at 8:09 AM, Brian E Carpenter wrote: > > > > 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 > > Brian et al., > Here are some data points for folks to consider. Thanks to > all those (a surprisingly large amount in two days!) that > replied to my query. > > ------------------------- > Question asked to all 2004/05 IESG & IAB "willing nominees": > > Would you have accepted nomination if the list of "willing > nominees" was made public: YES or NO? > > Response results: > --- > IESG Nominees: > Total Responses: 83% of IESG Nominees > YES: 79.4% > NO: 20.6% > --- > IAB Nominees: > Total Responses: 86.3% of IAB Nominees > YES: 86.4% > NO: 13.6% > ------------------------- > > I didn't include any additional comments several folks > expressed, as many of them have already been discussed here. > I'm certain that if I posed slightly different variations of > this question (for example, "What if the list were padded > w/ringers?" or the like) responses would have been different. > > One interesting (and perhaps rather intuitive) observation > that's not entirely obvious from the numbers above is that > several folks were OK with their names being listed as > "willing nominees" for only a subset of the positions which > they'd been nominated (e.g., OK with IAB nomination being > public, but not IETF chair or IESG nomination being public). > > Given the time I've spent with the NomCom over the last year > as chair, (and my previous voting member term a couple years > ago), I can say for sure that making the lists public would > certainly be interesting and useful from the perspective of > collecting feedback on nominees from the community. However, > I also understand why many folks are opposed to making the > list of "willing nominees" public. > > -danny > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Ietf mailing list > Ietf@xxxxxxxx > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf > > _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf