I tend to agree with Leslie that it would be better to update
the BCP. (I can volunteer to edit an update, if there are
no other takers.)
But I believe the update should simply allow the nomcom
to publish this information. As has been stated before,
a lot of this information is already around us, so many of
the potential downsides would already be a problem, if
they really would be problems. And given that we still
prefer the nomcom to be in charge, I do not think that
we will have a significant issue with electioneering. I
hope that the nomcom does more than counts positive
and negative inputs!
Leslie Daigle wrote:
Actually, I'm not sure I agree (that it's a good plan, or better
to do it this way than update the BCP).
When the NomCom WG was discussing this as part of creating RFC3777,
I was initially a proponent of the "publish the candidate list!"
perspective. I will admit to having been swayed by the arguments
that it increases the likelihood of scaring off potential candidates,
requires the freezing the candidate list, exposes the nomcom to second
guessing, and inevitably provokes electioneering.
Further, I also wonder what happens *after* the NomCom selections are
done. I.e., how many people will not have complaints taken seriously
because "they're just mad they were not selected".
1/ I'm not sure it's better to have a website that "interested
people" can subscribe to at the cost of agreeing to maintain
confidentiality than what we have today or going to a full
open model. It has the chance of significantly increasing
the "whisper group", and doesn't really solve any of the
negatives listed above.
2/ If we want to change the model, we should update the BCP, and
take the time to consciously re-evaluate the upsides and
downsides we know to exist with closed or open candidate
If we (the IETF community) genuinely want more openness, we should do
that, and get on with dealing with the negative sides we know will
exist. Let's not just go halfway and get the worst of both models.
Brian E Carpenter wrote:
Soliman, Hesham wrote:
> At 01:10 PM 5/4/2005, Soliman, Hesham wrote:
> > > One way to open up the process would be to allow any
> > > to personally request a list of candidates from Nomcom, against
> > > a personal non-disclosure promise. (Not my idea; this > was
> > > during last week's IESG retreat.)
> >=> If we do that we may as well put the list on the web. > How
do we define
> > There is a difference between having participants who are >
interested in > providing feedback ask for a copy of the list, with
a promise of > confidentiality, and give feedback - versus having
that information > publicly available. This sounds useful to me.
> > I don't think that "participant" really needs to be defined.
> Those who > will be interested are those who are involved.
Currently, > to obtain input > from a more diverse set of people,
Nomcomm has to guess who > is appropriate > to ask & hope that a
reasonable sampling of them will be > willing/interested > in
=> Ok, since I think it will lead to the same effect (widely known
I'm fine with that suggestion. Personally, I don't see the
difference between doing what you describe
above and sending the list of nominees to this mailing list. But either
option is definitely better than what we have today IMHO.
One difference is that we wouldn't have to update the BCP, since there
would be no overt breach of confidentiality. So next year's NomCom
could simply do this without further bureaucracy.
I'm going to ask this year's Nomcom chair to see if this year's
candidates can answer the question "would you have run if your name
had been made public?"
Ietf mailing list
Ietf mailing list
Ietf mailing list