RE: On being public (Was: Call for Nominees)

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

 



Pete,

	You do have to ask yourself how likely it is that the
observation
"I never thought of X as an AD for Y, but [they] would be perfect" is
to be true.  I imagine that knowing a candidate is both a good idea and
an important indicator of their viabililty as a candidate (assuming one
is actually qualified to make such a judgement - through participation 
on one's own part).  And, if the idea of them being in that position is
not one that naturally occurs to you, there may very well be a reason.
If a person's candidacy has not occurred to a significant number of the
people who are likely to care, then it is probable that there is a good
reason for that as well.

	This is not true for everything (there are occasional
"dark-horse"
candidates in many different contexts), but it is more likely to be true
in the case of IESG members - where "shrinking violets" are notoriously
unlikely to be successful as an AD.

--
Eric Gray
Principal Engineer
Ericsson  

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx [mailto:ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx] On 
> Behalf Of Pete Resnick
> Sent: Friday, September 12, 2008 11:26 PM
> To: IETF
> Subject: On being public (Was: Call for Nominees)
> 
> On 9/12/08 at 9:46 AM -0700, NomCom Chair wrote:
> 
> >If you are willing to serve, please nominate yourself.
> >If there is someone you think would do a good job, please 
> nominate them.
> 
> I'd like to take this opportunity to encourage people to do something 
> more open and transparent than we have in the past, without any 
> changes to rules or NomCom activity.
> 
> As we all know, the NomCom process is confidential. That is, whatever 
> one says to the NomCom with regard to nominees cannot be revealed by 
> the NomCom. That's a good idea: People need to be frank and honest 
> without worrying about jeopardizing personal relationships. However, 
> the confidentiality requirement has always also been read to mean 
> that the list of nominees must also be kept confidential. That's not 
> entirely clear in RFC 3777, but that's always been the practice. (I 
> believe the intent was to dissuade any kind of "campaigning", to 
> avoid discomfort about "running against" an incumbent or popular 
> nominee, as well as avoiding embarrassment for nominees who are not 
> chosen.) But this has a terrible side effect: The NomCom is unable to 
> get full feedback on nominees, both in the positive and the negative. 
> If you are unaware that Joe is up for the Foobar Area Director, you 
> may not have the opportunity to say to the NomCom, "Wow! It never 
> even occurred to me to think of Joe as a potential Foobar AD. He'd be 
> perfect!" Or conversely, "It never occurred to me that anyone 
> (including Joe himself) would seriously consider him for Foobar AD. 
> He'd be a disaster!"
> 
> There are just so many resources the NomCom has at its disposal to 
> get good information about nominees. We want folks who could provide 
> feedback to take the initiative, but they're really only going to do 
> so if they know who has their hat in the ring.
> 
> Though I think campaigning should be avoided, I think the other 
> issues surrounding revealing the names of nominees are not all that 
> problematic:
> 
> - We should all get over the notion that any particular nominee "must 
> obviously be chosen". It may turn out (perhaps on the *day* that the 
> NomCom is making their decision) that our favorite cannot serve 
> because they lose all funding in their current position, or change 
> jobs and no longer have the ability to serve, or die unexpectedly. 
> (And these things have happened.) We should be able to comment on all 
> of the candidates on the off chance that they are the NomCom's 
> apparent best choice.
> 
> - The fact that the NomCom must keep the reasons for *not* choosing 
> any particular candidate confidential mitigates the embarrassment of 
> not being chosen.
> 
> Obviously we can't change 3777 for this NomCom. However, there is 
> nothing in 3777 or elsewhere that *requires* any nominee to keep 
> their own nomination confidential. So, I'd like to encourage nominees 
> to be public. Here's what I have in mind: If you've been nominated, 
> post a simple message to the IETF list of the following form:
> 
> "My name was submitted to the NomCom for the position of <Foobar AD>, 
> and I've told the NomCom I'm willing to be considered. Of course, 
> this is no guarantee that if I get selected, I'd still be able to 
> serve. Please send them whatever positive or negative feedback you 
> have."
> 
> End of message. No commentary on why you'd be wonderful (or terrible) 
> for the job. Just inviting people to comment.
> 
> Thoughts on this?
> 
> pr
> -- 
> Pete Resnick <http://www.qualcomm.com/~presnick/>
> Qualcomm Incorporated - Direct phone: (858)651-4478, Fax: 
> (858)651-1102
> _______________________________________________
> Ietf mailing list
> Ietf@xxxxxxxx
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
> 
_______________________________________________

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]