[Top] [All Lists]

Sharing information from questionnaires (Re: Nomcom 2007-8 Chair's Report)

2008-03-07 01:11:28
Lakshminath Dondeti wrote:
On 3/6/2008 10:44 PM, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
Lakshminath Dondeti skrev:

A report on the nomcom's activities is available at  Please 
direct any comments to ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org(_dot_)  I will make a brief 
presentation at the IESG plenary.


    This document reports on the work of Nomcom 2007-8.  The topics of
    discussion include the experiences in starting the nomcom process
    early enough to facilitate the nomcom to do their work at 2 
    face meetings, the various logistical challenges involved in the
    nomcom process and the differing interpretations of RFC 3777 by
    different people and organizations involved in the process.  This
    document also discusses the challenges in the interaction 
between the
    nomcom and the confirmation bodies.

IETF mailing list


thank you very much for providing the report - and thank you for 
trying to defend people's expectations of confidentiality!

Hi Harald,

<as nomcom chair>
You are welcome.

I do agree with Scott that the process needs clarification - unlike 
him, I think it can be done without reopening 3777 on this point.

<speaking as an individual>
Sure, there are ways.

A solution without changing 3777 is for future chairs to be made aware 
that this is coming and advise them that they need to prepare 

First, it will be great if the IAB could clarify their requirements.  
It is simply not acceptable to say candidate statement == 
questionnaire response.  Nomcoms may collect all kinds of information 
from nominees through a questionnaire or for that matter, other 
means.  The questionnaire itself is prepared by a nomcom process.  
They cannot share that information just because a confirmation body 
asks for it pointing to their own internal documents.
Agreed - and one of the process failures here is that a nomcom that 
includes the previous chair and a liaison from the IAB designed a 
questionnaire in ignorance of the stated requirements; if the IAB 
expects the nomcom to consider the IAB's desires on the process when 
starting work, it's the IAB's responsibility to call attention to them.

(that said, I too was unaware of the IAB document - and I was relatively 
closely connected to the process in June 2003.....)

Future nomcoms could, in the absence of any response from the current 
IAB or the one a week from today, include an item in the questionnaire 
that asks for information for IAB's consumption: specifically, CV and 
"candidate's statement" (nominee's statement, when the nomcom asks for 
it) pointing to

Note: A variation of the above idea has been suggested by others.  I 
am not coming up with anything original there.
My suggestion is even more simple-minded: Put markers in the 
questionnaire around the sections
- Resume
- About the Area
(possibly more sections)
saying "these sections will be provided to the confirming bodies if you 
are forwarded to the confirming body as a candidate. All other 
information is confidential to the nomcom".

The questionnaire is under nomcom's control, and the decision to forward 
information is the nomcom's - the way I read it, the problem this year 
was that candidates couldn't reasonably be consulted about changing 
their privacy expectations after the fact.

But that requires that someone at questionnaire design time is aware of 
the requiremement to provide such information.

Of course the question then is, what purpose does 3777 serve when a 
confirming body chooses to prepare their own list of what needs to be 
provided as supporting material?  To repeat my own take on this, of 
all things, 3777 is quite clear on what needs to be provided.  There 
is no ambiguity whatsoever.  The text that the IAB point to -- "all 
information and any means acceptable to them" does not say anything 
about the nomcom facilitating it.  Now one could say, "any means 
acceptable" includes not confirming until the information they ask for 
is provided.  If we go down that road however, the same text reference 
could be used (note: hypothetical case) to ask for community feedback.

The other question is why should the IAB get any special consideration 
here?  Surely, the IESG and the ISOC BoT could ask for more 
information too and should be privy to the same level of information 
that IAB is privy to.
I think the ISOC Board is far more reticent about questioning the 
choices of the Nomcom than the IAB is, for multiple reasons.... agree 
that it's reasonable to get their expectations on the table, too.

So, we also need to be consistent, however we choose to do this going 
forward.  What is not good is to leave it be and let each nomcom fight 
it out with the IAB.

I'll have more to say when that discussion opens up.

The time is now, assuming that the next nomcom starts 2-3 months from 
now.  The timing is especially crucial if the consensus points to an 
update to 3777 to resolve this as Scott has concluded. 
OK - I've changed the subject line and started debating....


IETF mailing list