Mike, Thanks for your note. Are you saying that there is text within 3777 that says that confirming bodies should not ask for verbatim feedback but could ask for verbatim questionnaire responses? Consider this: what if the next nomcom were to be asked to provide verbatim feedback by one of the confirming bodies, what should they do? The supporting information that was cited from 3777 is very generic (with specific information provided later, if I may point out again) and so I don't see a reason why it cannot be cited in the context of that request. For the nomcom process to work, a number of people in the community ought to believe in it sufficiently to volunteer their time and a larger number of people need to believe in it to provide feedback. What am I hearing from my vantage point (having been a nomcom member for 3 out of the past 4 years) is what guides me to work on this; my goal is to maintain and if possible increase the level of confidence in the process. When I ask for information, I provide assurances that the information is for nomcom's eyes only (for instance, this was specifically the case when we interviewed people). 3777 also says any dissemination of private information by the nomcom must be minimal. So, I for one cannot just hand out private information without clearer text in 3777. Finally, when I make a mistake, I am more than ready to own up to that. In this case, my choice of words is quite appropriate. regards, Lakshminath On 3/16/2008 3:28 PM, Michael StJohns wrote: > At 05:46 PM 3/16/2008, Ole Jacobsen wrote: > >> You said: >> >> " The confirming bodies should not be concerned with the way the >> Nomcom got to the point of nominating someone (at least not during >> the process), but they are there to examine the nomination and >> nominee and to determine if - in the confirming body's best >> judgement - the nominee is acceptable for the position." >> >> And yet you believe that ALL the information provided by a >> candidate to the nomcom should be freely available to the >> confirming bodies? > > That's not actually what I said. What I said was the list of > information requested by the IAB in the referenced document was > reasonable and appropriate. But let's break down "ALL" for a minute > > A candidate provides data that is either a) relevant to his selection > by the Nomcom or b) is not relevant. If the Nomcom relies on a piece > of information provided to it by the candidate (lots of > possibilities, but lets try something like "I currently work for ABC > company - and I realize the other AD also works there, however I'm > leaving my current job on X date and moving to Y. My new employer > has agreed to sponsor me."),then its relevant. I'm unsure how the > confirming body confirms the candidate without also being apprised of > this information. I can do more examples, but my personal belief is > that any information a candidate provides that the Nomcom relied upon > to select the candidate is fair game for the confirming body. In > general though, I think the IAB struck a good balance with what it > wanted. > >> The only thing at issue here is: What information did the candidate >> think would be forwarded to the confirming body and what >> information did he/she have a reasonable expectation would stay >> within the committee? > > Not really. As has been pointed out numerous times before, the > confirming bodies are within the "cone of silence" of the nominations > process. This interpretation of the confirming bodies as adversaries > to the Nomcom that shouldn't ever see the raw material is fairly > recent - 5-6 years maybe. > > Ask any given candidate about whether or not they anticipated their > responses to the questionnaire were or were not fair game for the > confirming body and I expect you'll get a "huh"? I know if I submit > something to the process, I expect it will be used where it needs to > be used to get me confirmed. Why, given any reasonable reading of > 3777 (or its predecessors), would I think otherwise? > >> This may not require a new process RFC, it may simply require a >> questionnaire with a "confidential" section. > > A "Please don't tell the IAB but you should know..." section? And > what exactly would you expect a candidate to put in this section? > I'm not saying its a bad idea, but I'm having problems conceiving of > information that the Nomcom should consider that the Confirming body > should not. > > If you're talking about information provided in confidence to the > Nomcom as commentary by one candidate on another - that's a whole > other matter and has its own set of problems. But I think that's not > what you're talking about here? > >> The rest of your note isn't worth responding to since you choose to >> use such phrases as "FUD" and "HOG WASH". Sorry Mike, I would have >> expected better from you! > > And I would have thought better of you as well. I would have > expected you to consider my terms, then consider the tone of > Dondeti's text. He said: > >> I believe that the IAB's interpretation of 3777 on the matter of >> the confirmation process sets a dangerous precedence whereby one of >> the confirming bodies could require that the nomcom provide >> (samples of) verbatim feedback. > > I identified this as FUD and included my opinion (strongly stated) > that his opinion was unsupported by the facts. I cited the > particular items the IAB had requested, and noted that nothing in > those items were "dangerous" (and were in fact due dilligence) and > there was no indication that the IAB had asked for, would ask for, or > even cared about the above. It is fear mongering to support a > particular point of view (FUD) and it is unsupported by facts (HOG > WASH). > > I stand by both terms. > > Mike > > > _______________________________________________ IETF mailing list IETF@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf