Re: The TSV discussion and its spinoffs

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 




--On Saturday, March 09, 2013 10:31 -0500 Sam Hartman
<hartmans-ietf@xxxxxxx> wrote:

>>>>>> "John" == John C Klensin <john-ietf@xxxxxxx> writes:
>     John> confidential or not) or getting into public
> discussions about     John> qualifications for a position
> while that position is under     John> active consideration by
> the Nomcom (not because the     John> qualifications should be
>...
> John, I agree with what you say and what Jari said--both the
> part you quoted and the rest of his note.  However, I think
> the part of your note above is a bit unclear. I realize you
> and I have been having side discussions about this issue for a
> few days now, but I suspect the IETf list may not be able to
> follow what you wrote above, because I had significantly
> difficulty the first time you explained it to me.
> 
> When you engage in a discussion of qualifications while there
> is an open position, you very quickly force others to either
> abandon the discussion or to make comments that expose
> information about how they feel about candidates.
>...

Sam,

Yes, that is exactly correct.  I didn't say more because I'm
all-too-familiar with people not reading my longer notes and
thought writing in a little less detail might be a good
tradeoff.  Thank you for the example -- at least IMO, it
illustrates the problem very well and, as you say, it isn't hard
to come up with others.

>...
> Similar examples are easy to find.
> my conclusion is that you basically cannot discuss
> requirements for an open position while it's open and get
> meaningful results.
> 
> I look forward to the discussion of future years. I hope that
> who ever is moderating that discussion is very careful to
> close down any attempts to bring it to a discussion of this
> year or what this year's nomcom should do.  In my opinion,
> people who have opinions about that should contact the nomcom
> and iab (nomcom12@xxxxxxxx and iab@xxxxxxxx).

For whatever it is worth, this is yet another part of the
argument for Nomcom reports that are well-thought-out, careful
about confidentiality, and that, ideally, pose questions and
alternatives for the community to think about in public and
defines a foundation for discussing them. 

thanks again,
   john



[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]