Thanks for your note.
Are you saying that there is text within 3777 that says that confirming
bodies should not ask for verbatim feedback but could ask for verbatim
Consider this: what if the next nomcom were to be asked to provide
verbatim feedback by one of the confirming bodies, what should they do?
The supporting information that was cited from 3777 is very generic
(with specific information provided later, if I may point out again) and
so I don't see a reason why it cannot be cited in the context of that
For the nomcom process to work, a number of people in the community
ought to believe in it sufficiently to volunteer their time and a larger
number of people need to believe in it to provide feedback.
What am I hearing from my vantage point (having been a nomcom member for
3 out of the past 4 years) is what guides me to work on this; my goal is
to maintain and if possible increase the level of confidence in the
process. When I ask for information, I provide assurances that the
information is for nomcom's eyes only (for instance, this was
specifically the case when we interviewed people). 3777 also says any
dissemination of private information by the nomcom must be minimal. So,
I for one cannot just hand out private information without clearer text
Finally, when I make a mistake, I am more than ready to own up to that.
In this case, my choice of words is quite appropriate.
On 3/16/2008 3:28 PM, Michael StJohns wrote:
At 05:46 PM 3/16/2008, Ole Jacobsen wrote:
" The confirming bodies should not be concerned with the way the
Nomcom got to the point of nominating someone (at least not during
the process), but they are there to examine the nomination and
nominee and to determine if - in the confirming body's best
judgement - the nominee is acceptable for the position."
And yet you believe that ALL the information provided by a
candidate to the nomcom should be freely available to the
That's not actually what I said. What I said was the list of
information requested by the IAB in the referenced document was
reasonable and appropriate. But let's break down "ALL" for a minute
A candidate provides data that is either a) relevant to his selection
by the Nomcom or b) is not relevant. If the Nomcom relies on a piece
of information provided to it by the candidate (lots of
possibilities, but lets try something like "I currently work for ABC
company - and I realize the other AD also works there, however I'm
leaving my current job on X date and moving to Y. My new employer
has agreed to sponsor me."),then its relevant. I'm unsure how the
confirming body confirms the candidate without also being apprised of
this information. I can do more examples, but my personal belief is
that any information a candidate provides that the Nomcom relied upon
to select the candidate is fair game for the confirming body. In
general though, I think the IAB struck a good balance with what it
The only thing at issue here is: What information did the candidate
think would be forwarded to the confirming body and what
information did he/she have a reasonable expectation would stay
within the committee?
Not really. As has been pointed out numerous times before, the
confirming bodies are within the "cone of silence" of the nominations
process. This interpretation of the confirming bodies as adversaries
to the Nomcom that shouldn't ever see the raw material is fairly
recent - 5-6 years maybe.
Ask any given candidate about whether or not they anticipated their
responses to the questionnaire were or were not fair game for the
confirming body and I expect you'll get a "huh"? I know if I submit
something to the process, I expect it will be used where it needs to
be used to get me confirmed. Why, given any reasonable reading of
3777 (or its predecessors), would I think otherwise?
This may not require a new process RFC, it may simply require a
questionnaire with a "confidential" section.
A "Please don't tell the IAB but you should know..." section? And
what exactly would you expect a candidate to put in this section?
I'm not saying its a bad idea, but I'm having problems conceiving of
information that the Nomcom should consider that the Confirming body
If you're talking about information provided in confidence to the
Nomcom as commentary by one candidate on another - that's a whole
other matter and has its own set of problems. But I think that's not
what you're talking about here?
The rest of your note isn't worth responding to since you choose to
use such phrases as "FUD" and "HOG WASH". Sorry Mike, I would have
expected better from you!
And I would have thought better of you as well. I would have
expected you to consider my terms, then consider the tone of
Dondeti's text. He said:
I believe that the IAB's interpretation of 3777 on the matter of
the confirmation process sets a dangerous precedence whereby one of
the confirming bodies could require that the nomcom provide
(samples of) verbatim feedback.
I identified this as FUD and included my opinion (strongly stated)
that his opinion was unsupported by the facts. I cited the
particular items the IAB had requested, and noted that nothing in
those items were "dangerous" (and were in fact due dilligence) and
there was no indication that the IAB had asked for, would ask for, or
even cared about the above. It is fear mongering to support a
particular point of view (FUD) and it is unsupported by facts (HOG
I stand by both terms.
IETF mailing list