Lakshminath Dondeti wrote:
On 3/6/2008 10:44 PM, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
Lakshminath Dondeti skrev:
Folks,
A report on the nomcom's activities is available at
https://www.tools.ietf.org/group/nomcom/07/nomcom-report. Please
direct any comments to ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org(_dot_) I will make a brief
presentation at the IESG plenary.
Abstract
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-to-
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.
regards,
Lakshminath
_______________________________________________
IETF mailing list
IETF(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Laksminath,
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
accordingly.
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 http://www.iab.org/documents/docs/2003-07-23-nomcom.html.
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....
Harald
_______________________________________________
IETF mailing list
IETF(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf