--On Tuesday, September 05, 2006 12:44 PM -0700 Dave Crocker
<dhc2@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
...
One thing to watch out for in these proposals is that the
Nomcom now has the ability to brainstorm, conclude that
person X would be a better candidate for a particular
position than any of the already-suggested candidates, and
then go out an start twisting X's arm. The idea is
I was not offering any comment -- nevermind any suggestion for
change -- on the method(s) for obtaining candidates. Rather,
once a candidate is formally under Nomcom consideration, then
their name would be made public,
While it is probably not impossible to reconcile it with
public lists of candidates, reconciling the two might
require some effort.
I do not understand what "reconciling" is needed. Whenever a
candidate becomes a formal candidate, their name gets
published.
OK. For efficiency, the Nomcom might do some aggregations.
For example, it might choose to wait for completion of an
initial slate of candidates, before publishing any of their
names. I am not sure we need to dictate this.
But that is precisely why I think some formal proposal is
needed. The current discussion broke out because the procedures
were believed to be insufficient to cover a particular,
important, case. Part of the community is second-guessing the
decision that was made on the basis of Nomcom Chair discussion.
An overlapping part is determined to change the rules so that
issues like this are no longer subject to such discretion.
Now suppose the Nomcom waits until some deadline for suggestions
of names, then announces the names of candidates, then looks at
that list, concludes that it isn't happy with any of them,
identifies another candidate, gets her to agree, and announces
that name. This immediately tells the community that the Nomcom
didn't like the initial list and who the preferred candidate is.
We could debate how harmful that would be, but it does not seem
to me to be ideal. And it is sufficiently debatable that I
doubt than any sensible Nomcom chair would want to do it purely
on the chair's discretion: some guidance would be very much in
order, even if that guidance was not a firm set of rules.
How about a
specific proposal, folks? You and Dave clearly know how to
do that, even if some others who make a lot of postings to
this list don't seem to.
1. I'm not sure what additional language is needed, above what
I've written here.
See above.
2. I'm not sure how a 'formal' proposal gets submitted, nor am
I hopeful it will be productive, given the disposition of
most/all process proposals over the last 5 years.
That is, indeed, an issue. And I agree that it needs to be
addressed in a serious way before it is productive for anyone to
submit a substantive process change proposal about anything
(fine-tuning is an occasional exception).
john
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf