On 9/15/08 at 12:05 PM -0400, Leslie Daigle wrote: >The pros of openness as you cite below; the cons included potential >for campaigning (if not the candidate themselves, people who >supported them), as well as difficulty in getting people to step >forward. We need to have some cultural sophistication if we're going >to ask Sue to run against incumbent Bob openly, given that Sue's WG >has documents waiting for Bob's approval. I agree that it needs some cultural sophistication. However, I think (even in the current state of less-openness) that if Sue is uninclined to put her name in because she worries about Bob's approval of her documents, Sue should be saying that to the NomCom and the NomCom should toss Bob out on his ear. Bob himself should be out there, encouraging Sue (and others) to put their names in, saying things like, "Sue, you never know if I'm going to be run over by a bus or lose my job. And it would be good experience for you to go through the nominations process for when I step down. Get your name in!" We should foster the cultural sophistication as much as possible. >Secondly, it's not really useful (to the whole system) if only some >candidates declare themselves publicly. If some people agree with >your exhortation below, other candidates for the same positions will >be more or less obliged to come out in order to ensure that the >NomCom gets adequate input on them, too. The problem is, we currently have a state which is worse: A few people are open about their candidacy (there is nothing in the rules that stops that now), and they may get more feedback. Incumbents always get lots of feedback. But then we have a large bunch of people who (out of some notion of humility or feelings of not wanting to insult incumbents) don't get their names public and don't get the same kind of feedback. What I've suggested is designed to get people to level the field a bit more. >My point: it's not a simple decision, and it really is something the >IETF community as a whole should come to grips with and have a >consistent policy for. I agree that it's something we should document. I'm not convinced that it is something we shouldn't start doing now. On 9/15/08 at 1:09 PM -0400, Andrew Sullivan wrote: >I don't know whether this would be a good or bad thing, but I don't >think we should dismiss the observation that changing the rules, >even informally, changes the rules for everyone. Remember, there's no rule change here. RFC 3777 does not forbid anyone except for the NomCom from discussing nominees openly. I am simply encouraging everyone to do this in a reasonable and level way. pr -- Pete Resnick <http://www.qualcomm.com/~presnick/> Qualcomm Incorporated - Direct phone: (858)651-4478, Fax: (858)651-1102 _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf