Re: Adjusting the Nomcom process

John C Klensin wrote:
> --On Tuesday, September 05, 2006 3:10 PM -0400 Keith Moore 
> <moore(_at_)cs(_dot_)utk(_dot_)edu> wrote:
> > On balance, I think it would be preferable to make candidates'
> > names public as long as their consent is obtained before doing
I do not understand how it can be reasonable to have some candidates' 
names disclosed and others' not.  That makes things remarkably complex.
An IETF position entails massively public behavior.  If a candidate 
cannot tolerate public scrutiny during the selection process, what does 
that say about their personal fragility and likely methods when in office?
(On the matter of fragility, I am merely acknowledging that having 
candidates' names be public will likely result in there being 
unprofessional behavior by some IETF participants, in making public 
comment, rather than comment restricted to the Nomcom, and probably 
making comments about personality rather than performance.)

> One thing to watch out for in these proposals is that the Nomcom now has 
> the ability to brainstorm, conclude that person X would be a better 
> candidate for a particular position than any of the already-suggested 
> candidates, and then go out an start twisting X's arm.  The idea is 
I was not offering any comment -- nevermind any suggestion for change -- 
on the method(s) for obtaining candidates.  Rather, once a candidate is 
formally under Nomcom consideration, then their name would be made public,

> While it is probably not impossible to reconcile it with public lists of 
> candidates, reconciling the two might require some effort.  
I do not understand what "reconciling" is needed.  Whenever a candidate 
becomes a formal candidate, their name gets published.
OK.  For efficiency, the Nomcom might do some aggregations.  For 
example, it might choose to wait for completion of an initial slate of 
candidates, before publishing any of their names.  I am not sure we need 
to dictate this.

> How about a 
> specific proposal, folks?  You and Dave clearly know how to do that, 
> even if some others who make a lot of postings to this list don't seem to.
1. I'm not sure what additional language is needed, above what I've 
written here.
2. I'm not sure how a 'formal' proposal gets submitted, nor am I hopeful 
it will be productive, given the disposition of most/all process 
proposals over the last 5 years.

d/
--

  Dave Crocker
  Brandenburg InternetWorking
  bbiw.net

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf