Hello everybody, Sorry to be a little late on this. However, I think openness and transparency is good, and should be encouraged. Therefore I would like to tell that I'm NOT going to rerun for the currently open IAOC position, and I hope people would propose good candidates for the IAOC position if they already haven't done it. Cheers, Jonne. On 9/13/08 6:25 AM, "ext Pete Resnick" <presnick@xxxxxxxxxxxx> 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 -- Jonne Soininen Nokia Siemens Networks Tel: +358 40 527 46 34 E-mail: jonne.soininen@xxxxxxx _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf