+1 on the analysis. I'm personally in favour of attaining more openness in the process IF we can identify and address the real negatives (as a thoughtful process, in advance). Leslie. Michael StJohns 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 -- ------------------------------------------------------------------- "Reality: Yours to discover." -- ThinkingCat Leslie Daigle leslie@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ------------------------------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf