On Sep 15, 2008, at 12:05 PM, Leslie Daigle wrote: > > A few things to consider: > > Yes, the NOMCOM WG that developed RFC3777 did explicitly discuss issue > of openness of candidacy, and determine that it was best left as > part of > the confidential information. There were plenty of pros & cons. 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. Dear Leslie; Given the large number of cultures of the IETF participants, I think that asking for cultural sophistication is asking for a lot. Regards Marshall > > 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. > > 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. > > (Currently, that policy is in RFC3777). > > Leslie. > > > Pete Resnick wrote: >> 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 > > -- > > ------------------------------------------------------------------- > "Reality: > Yours to discover." > -- ThinkingCat > Leslie Daigle > leslie@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > ------------------------------------------------------------------- > _______________________________________________ > Ietf mailing list > Ietf@xxxxxxxx > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf