Subject changed, this is about to go off in a different direction. --On Thursday, October 27, 2011 08:38 -0500 Mary Barnes <mary.ietf.barnes@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >... > [MB] No, I do not think the comments should be public. My > point was that there is such a small percentage of the > community that even provides input that it is really difficult > to make really good decisions with that information. Each > nomcom asks for detailed feedback, but it is rare to get > feedback that provides concrete examples of why person x is > the best choice for a position. That makes the job of the > Nomcom extremely difficult and is one of the reasons why the > decisions can be far from perfect. > > The primary problem with the current Nomcom model that can't > be fixed by a process change is the lack of community input > (Note: there is still time for folks to provide that input for > this year's Nomcom!!!) So, I consider voting to be an easy > way for folks to express an opinion without providing details > - it at least could hopefully broaden community participation > because it takes far less effort. Mary, Please understand that what I'm about to say is not a criticism of any hard-working Nomcom or its members, present or past. First, the problem with voting in our environment is ensuring fairness: if nothing else, it would be really easy for a company who felt like doing so to pack the proverbial ballot box. But, more important, when the Nomcom model was developed, I think the assumption of most of the community would be that the Nomcom would be populated mostly by really active participants in the IETF and that, in general, if a particular candidate wasn't personally known to at least several Nomcom members, that would be a really bad sign about that candidate. In that environment, extensive polls/ questionnaires were probably unnecessary; at worst, Nomcom's didn't need to depend on them as a primary source of information. Since then, several things have happened. The most important is that the community has gotten bigger and a number of trends have combined with size to make the assumption of first-person knowledge a lot less likely. The number of positions to be filled has also increased significantly: for example, I'm pretty sure there were fewer areas in 1996 and the typical area had one AD, rather than two being the norm for everyone by the IETF Chair. The Nomcom process has gotten longer (probably in part as a result) and serving on a Nomcom has become more burdensome. With most positions to be filled by the Nomcom, effectively having a rule that anyone interested in any of those positions should not volunteer to serve on the Nomcom may have some effect on participation. I'm sure you could add to that list. For that set of reasons, while I don't think voting is the answer unless we decide to change our membership model so that we can identify close affiliates and vote by organization and/or restrict the ability of any organization or group of organizations to capture the process --and, for the record, I don't favor trying that -- I do think some fundamental rethinking of the Nomcom model may be important and important soon. In the interim, if the Nomcom wants more feedback, I suggest that some tuning (not requiring major reforms) may be in order to actually make giving that input easier. Let me give four examples, but they are only examples. There may be others that would be even more useful to think about. (1) There is an incumbent bias built into the system because Nomcoms (using a reasonable reading of the criteria in various BCPs), appear to believe that their job is to return an incumbent who is willing to serve again unless a candidate is available who would be clearly superior. Especially for the IESG, unless the incumbent has screwed up in a serious way, that bar will normally be impossibly high because a sitting AD is a known quantity and almost any alternate candidate is a risk. Spencer Dawkins and I made a proposal a couple of years ago for the Nomcom to review the incumbents who were willing to serve again separately, make decisions about them, and only then start considering others. The proposal, at least in the last version posted (https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-klensin-nomcom-incumbents-first/) never got an real traction. The proposal had some disadvantages, some of which might have been fixed with more work, and others of which were just tradeoffs to be considered. But one clear effect would have been to drastically reduce the number of positions for which the community is asked to comment on a list of candidates. (2) Independent of that particular suggestion, the number of slots on which people are now being asked to comment, and, in some cases, the number of people who are listed for each slot, is just daunting. Ask someone to comment on two or three candidates for one position (or even a few positions) and you will probably get a lot of input, especially if the people you ask seem to be a focused list, chosen in some intelligent way. Ask folks to comment on 48 names and I suggest that human nature predicts a lot of "maybe I'll get to that another time" and general tuning out. Perhaps it means that RFC 5680 was the wrong answer to the question/ problem, but I suggest that there is a reason why no plausible search process in the work world presents a final selection process with 48 people, or even seven, for in-depth consideration and comments. Developing short lists has the advantage that the selection process gets comments on those candidates for whom it really wants and needs comments _and_ people have more incentive to write good comments for the smaller number of people for whom they will be useful. Listing everyone who expressed interest (or was willing to be listed for some other reason) might get a Nomcom to look again at a superstar who had slipped through the cracks of earlier considerations but is much more likely to just overwhelm the system with noise. (3) I don't believe it has happened this year, but trends in the community predict that, sooner or later, we will have someone volunteer for a large number of positions simply because he or she (or whomever they work for) wants them in the IETF leadership. Someone ought to be able to write one comment that says "Goofy wants to be in the leadership to enhance his resume and told several of us that at a Bar BOF and should not be selected for _any_ position. If you don't believe me alone, check with X, Y, or Z." In the current model, that would require writing a separate review for each position. Lots of make-work; might not happen at all. But a Nomcom would really want that input I think. (4) I have some basis for believing I can comment on the IAB and its needs. Perhaps I'm completely wrong, too old and set in my ways and that my opinions should be dismissed or negatively weighted -- that is the Nomcom's decision, not mine. But one of my observations is that the IAB's role is not really very well defined for Nomcom considerations and that the role and utility of the IAB is strongly shaped by those who are put on it. In the interest of full disclosure, if I were [re]inventing the world, I would significantly reduce the fraction of the IAB that is appointed by the Nomcom, but that is another discussion. IMO, the way for me to make useful comments is to explain some scenarios about what I think the IAB might be like and then tell the Nomcom which people I would select to advance each of those scenarios. With a very small number of exceptions, I can't evaluate people without those scenarios; simply presenting me with a list of 20 choices creates high odds of the Nomcom's getting no comments at all. Just my opinion, YMMD. john _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf