Hi, Dave Crocker wrote: >> >> At that point, shouldn't we just be making the short list public? > > >1. They are careful to say that the lists that are stuffed >with some fake entries. Although I respect the intention, >this long-standing technique -- attempting to protect the >privacy of actual candidates, is ineffective and wasteful. It >is particularly wasteful by having lots of folks asked to >provide feedback about people who are not real candidates. > I agree. When I was in NomCom two years ago, I was embarrased to see negative, often very personal, feedback given on folks who had just been put on the short list as fake entries. Some of these people had even explicitly turned down their nomination. Of course the NomCom confidentiality rules apply to that feedback and we never discussed it even in the NomCom, but it still felt weird. >2. Using some method of restricting the query to "active" wg >participants is a good idea. Using the existance of a Tools >account is one simple method. It's always worth considering >whether there are better criteria that are easy to implement, >but the current approach is pretty reasonable. > Agree here too. I think it would actually be good to have some kind of pre-defined criteria on who is asked for feedback. Otherwise *that* group may lead to bias, for instance there is a lot of input from people active in certain WGs and very little from others. There's also a chance that active NomCom members can insert in this group a lot of people they know to give a certain type of feedback. I would be in favor of making the short lists public. This semi-secrecy is creating a way too much speculation and suspicion. Markus _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf