ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: On the confidentiality of the information and communication within the nomcom context

2008-03-18 21:27:38


Brian E Carpenter wrote:
At 10:46 PM 3/17/2008, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
*The names of people nominated should be made public.
*The names of the people who agreed to serve if selected should be
kept secret.
...
Brian, many thinks are easy to say without thinking things through.
Or without reading carefully.
...
The proposal was for disclosure of those nominated.

Afaik "nominated" in the RFC 3777 context means nominated
to the slate; at every earlier stage the people under
consideration are "candidates". Hence my confusion...

Well, the odds were at least even that the "without reading carefully" was mine 
rather than yours, but I took the particular 2-bullet list of Harald's to mean 
that "selected" came later.  Indeed, later in his message there is:

      "The reasoning I have is that several people argued that they did not
want it publicly known that they were willing to stand against an
incumbent - but they could always blame the fact that they were
nominated on someone else"

which seems to confirm that he meant "nominated" in terms of a name being given 
to Nomcom for consideration among a set of candidates.


Hence, any public comment would be accepted during the same period as
the Nomcom normally seeks comments explicitly.  No change in timeline is
needed.


2. Explicitly reduce the confirming bodies' role to verifying
that due process has been followed, since there is clearly no
scope for further debate about the chosen nominees after step 1.
Frankly this sounds like an entirely independent issue, unrelated to the
current proposal.

I don't think so. If we switch to comments from the public on a public
list, I can't see any role for the confirming bodies in debating
the NomCom's individual choices.

Some plausible reasons for continuying the role of the confirming bodies:

1. Making names who are nominated public is separate from conducting public 
discussion about those named.

2. Given extensive IETF history, it is unlikely that public discussion would 
converge.

3. For all of the public discussion that might occur, there are likely to be 
facts and concerns that are available privately that are not available publicly.

d/
-- 

   Dave Crocker
   Brandenburg InternetWorking
   bbiw.net
_______________________________________________
IETF mailing list
IETF(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf