+1 --On Monday, 15 September, 2008 14:42 -0400 Michael StJohns <mstjohns@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > At 12:29 PM 9/15/2008, Dave CROCKER wrote: > > >> Leslie Daigle wrote: >>> 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 hope that this observation scares folk as much as it >> should. The implication that an incumbent AD is to be >> feared implies that ADs have far too much power. > > This isn't only about AD power, it's about perception of > conflict of interest. Let's say the AD does bounce the > documents, refuses to charter a WG, or refuses to let Sue act > as WG chair - mainly because the AD thinks the documents are > poorly structured, the WG is a bad idea technically, or Sue > would be incompetent as a WG chair. Sue, since she's > announced her candidacy, complains that the AD has been mean > to her because she was running against him. > > This might be a specious argument, but there are enough > conspiracy theorists hanging about the IETF to make the issue > not about how good Sue or her products are, but about whether > or not the AD is abusing his/her power against a political > opponent. Without Sue's public candidacy, the argument would > hopefully tend to stay closer to the technical side of things. > And the Nomcom would still be able to consider whether or not > there might be an AD abuse of power without getting the > political conflict of interest mix-in confusion. > > > >>> Secondly, it's not really useful (to the whole system) if >>> only some candidates declare themselves publicly. >> >> That's just plain wrong. >> >> If a candidate wishes to encourage openness and encourage a >> broader base of input to Nomcom, they can and should >> disclose their candidacy. Nomcom will benefit from having >> better information, for the candidates who choose to >> publicly disclose their candidacy, because more people will >> know that comments on a particular candidate are needed. >> >> No candidate need wait for other candidates to agree to this. >> >> Contrary to your view, it is a very simple decision. > > Contrary to your view it is a very complex decision. > > There are a number of reasons for an all or nothing approach > and where all agree to the terms: > > 1) The nomcom selects (and the CB confirms) a candidate who > did not make their candidacy public. I would expect that at > least a few folks (Dave!) would complain loudly about this, > even though there was no formal requirement. I would prefer > the Nomcom not feel this pressure unless all candidates were > required to submit publicly. > > 2) The nomcom initiates a second round of solicitations, even > though a number of candidates have made their candidacy > public. The reasons for doing this might be a desire for more > candidates, a desire for better candidates, etc. It might > still end up selecting the non-public candidates, but would > find it harder to select the public ones (at least to my point > of view). Also, the amount of second guessing the Nomcom > would encounter would make their deliberations a bit more > difficult. > > 3) A public candidate is rejected for reasons which would have > probably also disqualified the non-public candidate, but the > non-public candidate is selected because the data about this > disqualification wasn't shared with the Nomcom. > > 4) A public candidate is selected because no one on the nomcom > knew him/her, but they got lots of "select him" emails - also > from people they didn't know. A better, but non-public > candidate was considered, but not selected in the face of the > large number of emails for this one candidate. Quantity > triumphs over quality. > > So its really not a fair and level playing ground. Either all > should do it or none. > > Note that there are arguments that go the other way - but most > of those could somewhat be cured by the non-public candidate > making things public. I'm not arguing that making candidacy > public is the way to go - and in fact I see more problems that > not with going that way, but I am arguing that a voluntary > approach such as Pete is recommending is worse than either of > the two alternatives. > >> More importantly, it is exactly the sort of decision that can >> and should be individual and has no need to wait for some >> magic group decision or formal IETF policy -- a decision >> that we've solidly demonstrated will not get made. >> >> d/ >> >> -- >> >> Dave Crocker >> Brandenburg InternetWorking >> bbiw.net >> _______________________________________________ >> Ietf mailing list >> Ietf@xxxxxxxx >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf > > > _______________________________________________ > Ietf mailing list > Ietf@xxxxxxxx > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf