Lakshminath Dondeti wrote: > On 3/6/2008 10:44 PM, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote: >> Lakshminath Dondeti skrev: >>> Folks, >>> >>> A report on the nomcom's activities is available at >>> https://www.tools.ietf.org/group/nomcom/07/nomcom-report. Please >>> direct any comments to ietf@xxxxxxxxx I will make a brief >>> presentation at the IESG plenary. >>> >>> Abstract >>> >>> This document reports on the work of Nomcom 2007-8. The topics of >>> discussion include the experiences in starting the nomcom process >>> early enough to facilitate the nomcom to do their work at 2 >>> face-to- >>> face meetings, the various logistical challenges involved in the >>> nomcom process and the differing interpretations of RFC 3777 by >>> different people and organizations involved in the process. This >>> document also discusses the challenges in the interaction >>> between the >>> nomcom and the confirmation bodies. >>> >>> regards, >>> Lakshminath >>> _______________________________________________ >>> IETF mailing list >>> IETF@xxxxxxxx >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf >>> >>> >> Laksminath, >> >> thank you very much for providing the report - and thank you for >> trying to defend people's expectations of confidentiality! > > Hi Harald, > > <as nomcom chair> > You are welcome. > > >> >> I do agree with Scott that the process needs clarification - unlike >> him, I think it can be done without reopening 3777 on this point. > > <speaking as an individual> > Sure, there are ways. > > A solution without changing 3777 is for future chairs to be made aware > that this is coming and advise them that they need to prepare > accordingly. > > First, it will be great if the IAB could clarify their requirements. > It is simply not acceptable to say candidate statement == > questionnaire response. Nomcoms may collect all kinds of information > from nominees through a questionnaire or for that matter, other > means. The questionnaire itself is prepared by a nomcom process. > They cannot share that information just because a confirmation body > asks for it pointing to their own internal documents. Agreed - and one of the process failures here is that a nomcom that includes the previous chair and a liaison from the IAB designed a questionnaire in ignorance of the stated requirements; if the IAB expects the nomcom to consider the IAB's desires on the process when starting work, it's the IAB's responsibility to call attention to them. (that said, I too was unaware of the IAB document - and I was relatively closely connected to the process in June 2003.....) > > Future nomcoms could, in the absence of any response from the current > IAB or the one a week from today, include an item in the questionnaire > that asks for information for IAB's consumption: specifically, CV and > "candidate's statement" (nominee's statement, when the nomcom asks for > it) pointing to http://www.iab.org/documents/docs/2003-07-23-nomcom.html. > > Note: A variation of the above idea has been suggested by others. I > am not coming up with anything original there. My suggestion is even more simple-minded: Put markers in the questionnaire around the sections - Resume - About the Area (possibly more sections) saying "these sections will be provided to the confirming bodies if you are forwarded to the confirming body as a candidate. All other information is confidential to the nomcom". The questionnaire is under nomcom's control, and the decision to forward information is the nomcom's - the way I read it, the problem this year was that candidates couldn't reasonably be consulted about changing their privacy expectations after the fact. But that requires that someone at questionnaire design time is aware of the requiremement to provide such information. > > Of course the question then is, what purpose does 3777 serve when a > confirming body chooses to prepare their own list of what needs to be > provided as supporting material? To repeat my own take on this, of > all things, 3777 is quite clear on what needs to be provided. There > is no ambiguity whatsoever. The text that the IAB point to -- "all > information and any means acceptable to them" does not say anything > about the nomcom facilitating it. Now one could say, "any means > acceptable" includes not confirming until the information they ask for > is provided. If we go down that road however, the same text reference > could be used (note: hypothetical case) to ask for community feedback. > > The other question is why should the IAB get any special consideration > here? Surely, the IESG and the ISOC BoT could ask for more > information too and should be privy to the same level of information > that IAB is privy to. I think the ISOC Board is far more reticent about questioning the choices of the Nomcom than the IAB is, for multiple reasons.... agree that it's reasonable to get their expectations on the table, too. > > So, we also need to be consistent, however we choose to do this going > forward. What is not good is to leave it be and let each nomcom fight > it out with the IAB. > >> >> I'll have more to say when that discussion opens up. > > The time is now, assuming that the next nomcom starts 2-3 months from > now. The timing is especially crucial if the consensus points to an > update to 3777 to resolve this as Scott has concluded. OK - I've changed the subject line and started debating.... Harald _______________________________________________ IETF mailing list IETF@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf