Agreeing with this thread, I think a few ADs might undertake a few cautious experiments for a few WGs. AFAIK, there is nothing in the process rules that forbid soliciting private opinions about candidates. Just like technical discussions, "I support" is as useful as a barrel full of butter at a dog grooming parlour. But "This wouldn't work because..." can save the WG a lot of pain. Additionally "Have you considered Fredericka who has the following skills..." would be a help. Chair turn-over is not high, but the experiment is easily corrected since firing chairs is easy. Over to the IESG to enact this? Adrian > -----Original Message----- > From: ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx [mailto:ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Dave > Crocker > Sent: 11 November 2013 16:11 > To: IETF Discussion > Subject: Re: A sort of council of elders for the internet > > On 11/10/2013 1:35 PM, Ted Lemon wrote: > > On Nov 10, 2013, at 3:41 PM, Dave Crocker <dhc@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> Without changing the /authority/ of the AD to make appointments, > >> what about having the AD circulate a list of candidates to the > >> pre-wg mailing list and solicit comments. > > > > I absolutely love this idea, and I think it would be a disaster. > > There's a reason why nomcom comments are not made public. And as an > > AD, I can tell you that there are situations I can imagine (which > > haven't yet come up) where I would absolutely _not_ want to follow > > the preference of the community. You could argue that such a > > situation is dysfunctional and the working group ought not to be > > formed, and you might be right, but I think you need to iterate on > > this idea a few times before we get to where it's something that > > could actually be done... :) > > > That last sentence (, but...) is key. > > I put forward a basic idea. Most of the critical responses have > rejected the idea outright. I didn't intend my suggestion as > fully-formed, but as an idea needing discussion, to work through the > details of making it viable within the IETF culture. > > For example, contrary to at least one response, I never suggested that > there be public discussion of the candidates. > > Most of the negative comments have re-iterated concerns that were lodged > for many years about making nomcom-related nominations public, delaying > the adoption of this utterly reasonable change for at least 10 years and > hurting the nomcom process as a result. > > As far as I am aware -- including two recent rounds of participating in > nomcom - none of the fears have been realized. Rather, I believe the > greater transparency has been extremely helpful to the nomcom process. > > Most of the negative comments also tend to ignore problems with the > current model. I'll suggest that these these involve tradeoffs and that > concerns need to be balanced against benefits. The concerns also need > to pay attention to IETF realities rather than unanchored fears. So, > for example, there have been almost no cases of politicking, since > nomcom nominations became public. > > The current methodology for choosing wg chairs is not without problems. > That's what triggered my making the suggestion. > > Those problems will not get resolved magically. > > d/ > > > -- > Dave Crocker > Brandenburg InternetWorking > bbiw.net