Re: On the confidentiality of the information and communication within the nomcom context

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On 2008-03-19 16:40, Dave Crocker wrote:
> 
> 
> Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>> On 2008-03-19 15:23, Dave Crocker wrote:
>>> Michael StJohns wrote:
>>>> At 10:46 PM 3/17/2008, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
>>>>> *The names of people nominated should be made public.
>>>>> *The names of the people who agreed to serve if selected should be
>>>>> kept secret.
>>>> +1
>>>> Open enough to get feedback, but kind to the rejected candidates. 
>>> +1
>>
>> It's very tempting to say +1 without thinking about the unintended
>> consequences.
> 
> Brian, many thinks are easy to say without thinking things through.
> 
> Or without reading carefully.
> 
> 
>> Clearly, if NomCom published a proposed slate and ask for comments
>> (to be kept confidential) they would get a lot of comments. However,
>> if they published a proposed slate and said "we have now sent this
>> to the Confirming Body", something rather different would probably
>> happen. 
> 
> Since the proposal was for disclosure much earlier in the process, what
> is the point of introducing the issue of being selected by Nomcom?
> 
> Nothing in the proposal imposes additional tasks to the confirming body.
> 
> 
>> 1. Add a new period to the timeline for the community to send
>> comments to NomCom and for NomCom to consider those comments,
>> and possibly change the slate as a result (in which case, GOTO 1).
> 
> The proposal was for disclosure of those nominated.

Afaik "nominated" in the RFC 3777 context means nominated
to the slate; at every earlier stage the people under
consideration are "candidates". Hence my confusion...

> 
> Hence, any public comment would be accepted during the same period as
> the Nomcom normally seeks comments explicitly.  No change in timeline is
> needed.
> 
> 
>> 2. Explicitly reduce the confirming bodies' role to verifying
>> that due process has been followed, since there is clearly no
>> scope for further debate about the chosen nominees after step 1.
> 
> Frankly this sounds like an entirely independent issue, unrelated to the
> current proposal.

I don't think so. If we switch to comments from the public on a public
list, I can't see any role for the confirming bodies in debating
the NomCom's individual choices.

   Brian
_______________________________________________
IETF mailing list
IETF@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]