I think that what is needed here is transparency, the problem is not the
outcome, it's the way the outcome is arrived at.
I think that it is equally important to have the same level of
transparency when WG chairs are appointed. The WG should be told when a
vacancy is coming up and there should be an open call for volunteers.
I don't think that we would end up with different chairs but people
would feel a lot more involved than they do at present when a chair
suddenly gets parachuted in without the group even knowing that a
vacancy existed.
-----Original Message-----
From: ietf-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
[mailto:ietf-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org] On
Behalf Of Danny McPherson
Sent: Wednesday, May 11, 2005 3:31 PM
To: ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
Subject: Re: Complaining about ADs to Nomcom (Re: Voting (again))
On May 9, 2005, at 8:09 AM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
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?"
Brian
Brian et al.,
Here are some data points for folks to consider. Thanks to
all those (a surprisingly large amount in two days!) that
replied to my query.
-------------------------
Question asked to all 2004/05 IESG & IAB "willing nominees":
Would you have accepted nomination if the list of "willing
nominees" was made public: YES or NO?
Response results:
---
IESG Nominees:
Total Responses: 83% of IESG Nominees
YES: 79.4%
NO: 20.6%
---
IAB Nominees:
Total Responses: 86.3% of IAB Nominees
YES: 86.4%
NO: 13.6%
-------------------------
I didn't include any additional comments several folks
expressed, as many of them have already been discussed here.
I'm certain that if I posed slightly different variations of
this question (for example, "What if the list were padded
w/ringers?" or the like) responses would have been different.
One interesting (and perhaps rather intuitive) observation
that's not entirely obvious from the numbers above is that
several folks were OK with their names being listed as
"willing nominees" for only a subset of the positions which
they'd been nominated (e.g., OK with IAB nomination being
public, but not IETF chair or IESG nomination being public).
Given the time I've spent with the NomCom over the last year
as chair, (and my previous voting member term a couple years
ago), I can say for sure that making the lists public would
certainly be interesting and useful from the perspective of
collecting feedback on nominees from the community. However,
I also understand why many folks are opposed to making the
list of "willing nominees" public.
-danny
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf