Having been on several nomcoms, served as chair, and as a
liaison/advisor, I fully agree with Fred. I think we see a thread
such as this (i.e., re: confidentiality of nomcom feedback, willing
nominees, non-willing nominees, who's re-upping, who's not,
etc..) pretty much every year about this time.
Unfortunately, as anyone who has been there can attest, nomcom
chair, or _any nomcom membership, voting or liaise member, is an
immense amount of work with little recognition and lots of flak
probability in the event that even the slightest (unintentional or not)
mistake might have occurred, or someone that should or shouldn't
be selected is or isn't, or the largely inaccurate rumor mill is
or the process is broken, or the tools insufficient, or whatever..
With a process just barely loose enough to work without imploding,
and the group of volunteers collectively known as the nomcom most
always trying to do what they believe to be the <right> thing for the
community - I believe this to be the intention and usual result.
Of course, there's nothing unique with this and the nomcom within
the IETF, as it's equally applicable to any of the IETF leadership
positions, from WG chairs and certainly I* folk. The often heedless
manner in which their intentions, motivations and ethics are
questioned unhesitatingly could certainly employ a bit more
All these processes and structures certainly need to be continually
evaluated and evolved, and I'm pleased some folks have ample
cycles with which to devote such attention, but there are certainly
enough other things to busy my idle hands.
If not annoyed, I remain amazed at such repetitive conjecture from
Ietf mailing list