-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Russ White wrote: >> If everyone knew, there would be more lobbying since there would be more >> people participating. I doubt the direct or secret-list lobbying would >> wane much as a result. > > I don't think you'll get any more lobbying than you get now. The point > of the nomcom being people, rather than a simple vote, is to filter out > this sort of lobbying, because it's going to happen either way. Having only the Nomcom decide amplifies lobbying, because the effort can be concentrated on a small set of voters. A similar effect happened last year in the US when the effect of a popular vote was insufficient to select a Democratic party nominee. Rather than lobbying the general public, effort was focused on "superdelagates" whose vote was not tied to the general public. (yes, this is simplified, but I hope the point is taken). > The question is: Is the nomcom better at filtering out lobbying, or > failures to get effective feedback because we're trying to keep > something "secret?" After serving on the nomcom three times, I can > easily say more feedback is better, and I'd rather work at weeding out > lobbying--which I must do anyway--than to try and fix lack of feedback, > or make "educated guesses." Again, I agree that this is better for the Nomcom. The questions are: 1- is this better for the pool of applicants or does being on a public list provide a reason not to offer to serve? 2- is this better for the IETF as a whole does the Nomcom actually come to a better decision as a result? I've shown specific impact to #1 above. The Nomcom does NOT select the best person for each position. They select the best person _available_, using a set criteria that at least partly bias their decision to avoid controversy (what if *all* the selected nominees were from Canada in one year?), as influenced by whatever lobbying occurs to re-bias that decision. Making the list public changes all these factors, but does not clearly make the decision more reliable when considered as a whole. Joe -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iEYEARECAAYFAkoyhxoACgkQE5f5cImnZrv/mQCg5m2yuarYx+28rf+Dc0+jy6Fd rGEAoJhq7/L3mfk88ginyXZNQTSyd50T =ufTe -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf