Playing a bit of catch-up on this thread...
Alia Atlas <aatlas@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
> 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 think this would be useful, though I'd add that the nomcom should
have discretion to ignore such requests or only respond if they
believe feedback from the requesting individual would actually be
valueable. I wouldn't expect the nomcom to invoke such a privilege
without good reason, but I'd feel better if they had the ability to
vet requests to prevent denial of service and other abuses.
And as later messages suggest, the above would be consistent with
the current BCP, and I see nothing wrong with someone saying "I know
something about this area, and would like to provide input". If the
nomcom is convinced this is the case, they can certainly provide a
list of some sort.
I'll also note that in the past, nomcoms used to send a list of names
to a set of people and ask for feedback. But, it turned out that they
didn't even get feedback from some of those people. Nowadays, folk are
asked if they would provide feedback (and under confidentiality rules)
and only after they respond are they sent a list. I think this is a
better system and I suspect that it reduces the number of people who
see a list, but then don't actually send feedback to the nomcom.
Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
> Like Hesham, I am also aware of this argument and do not
> necessarily agree with it. (In fact, one could make the point
> that not being able to tell you have volunteered sounds a bit
> wimpy compared to what kind of public visibility and pressures
> the folks need to deal with if they are actually selected,
> particularly to the IESG.)
I see nothing wrong with telling folk that you have volunteered, if
one is so inclined. What is not appropriate, however, is relaying to
others information that can only have come out of the nomcom
(e.g,. who you are commenting on, who you think the short list is,
etc.)
Brian E Carpenter <brc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> fwiw I responded "Yes" to Danny's question, but not
> without careful thought and some hesitation.
Danny asked a very specific question:
> Would you have accepted nomination if the list of "willing
> nominees" was made public: YES or NO?
Note that this question was about _this_ particular nomcom cycle,
_this_ particular set of open slots, and _this_ particular situation
an individual finds themself in, etc.
I suspect that anyone who says they would answer yes to this question
no matter what, has not actually thought through the awkward
situations that can arise (or themselves been caught up within one).
One common concern (and I've seen this in real life) goes something
like: would you accept a nomination for IESG position X, where
- the incumbent happens to be employed by the same employer as you,
or
- where the incumbent and you are colleages and _have_ to be able to
work together after the nomcom results are out, regardless of the
outcome?
A good number of folk (that would make good potential ADs) simply say
"no, the current incumbent is doing a fine job and I won't run against
them". If one believes that the nomcom should be trying hard to find
the best people for the job (including possibly arm-twisting reluctant
persons), the above should give pause when it comes to publishing
candidate lists.
Thomas
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf