|
RE: Nomcom process realities of "confidentiality"
2008-03-20 07:31:25
Lakshminath,
Let me be prefectly frank: if feedback were completely unverifiable
as a result of rigid "confidentiality" requirements, there would be
nothing to stop someone from making things up. Note that this is -
absolutely - not the same thing as saying anyone in the IETF would
actually take advantage of the opportunity. That would be similar
to saying that - because we know a little about network protocols -
we are all capable of being the worst sort of hackers.
But there can be a lot of reasons why someone might take advantage
of such an opportunity and - let's face it - at least part of the
reason why people are inclined to verify what they hear is because
there is that possibility.
This may sound a little cynical, and maybe it is - but there are a
few of us that feel that giving feedback based on poorly supported
impressions is not a lot different from "making it up."
--
Eric Gray
Principal Engineer
Ericsson
-----Original Message-----
From: Lakshminath Dondeti [mailto:ldondeti(_at_)qualcomm(_dot_)com]
Sent: Wednesday, March 19, 2008 6:17 PM
To: Eric Gray
Cc: Dave Crocker; IETF Discussion
Subject: Re: Nomcom process realities of "confidentiality"
Importance: High
On 3/19/2008 11:12 AM, Eric Gray wrote:
Dave,
I think I disagree with you on several of the details
in your discussion without necessarily disagreeing with
where you are going with it.
First of all, I think that the realistic view of the
possibility of something leaking is enough to ensure that
people do not make things up when giving feedback. The fact
that what a person says may eventually get back to the one
they said it about tends to make people stick to facts.
Eric,
May I assume you use the word "leaking" above in the context
of (d) and
(e) below and other similar contexts? Next, I wouldn't quite
say people
"make things up;" each person communicates their perceptions and the
nomcoms may then investigate how pervasive is the said feeling in the
community, if they don't already know from the feedback already
collected, balance all other view points and figure out what
is in the
best interests of the community. It is a subjective process
and that's
why we use humans to do it.
thanks,
Lakshminath
That is useful.
But the possibility needs to be very small. However
important people may feel it is to verify what they hear,
it is not a good idea to turn everything you hear into some
sort of juicy gossip to be handed around like used needles.
That is not only not useful, it leads to potentially
seriously disruptive emotional reactions to what may very
well have been meant as consturctive criticism.
In addition, I think that someone who cannot deal with
the possibility that they may hear things that they have to
either keep entirely to themselves, or exercise a very high
degree of discretion about, should be straight-forward about
that at some point before they are exposed to that kind of
information. If that means they have to step down from a
liaison role, or some other role in the NomCom process, then
that is what they need to do.
However, I think this is buried in your comments under
what I think you're identifying as the "human factor" - and
it is true that the degree of discretion that applies is a
very hard fence to walk. Never-the-less, some very simple
guide-lines do exist. For example, consider the following:
In a private NomCom discussion Sigfreed tells Signund
that she heard that the candidate Borg has a reputation for
being excessively stubborn. Signund happens to know Borg
very well and they have been friends for many years. The
possible choices for Signund range across (at least) the
following possibilities -
a) ignore the comment because it is clearly already second
hand information,
b) explore the comment further with Sigfreed to see if there
is anything she knows from first hand,
c) accept the comment as one data point but otherwise keep
it to themselves,
d) check with a number of other people to see if they have
gotten a similar impression, but without referring to
any specific source(s),
e) check with Borg to see if there is any reason why anyone
might have gotten the impression that Borg is stubborn
(again being careful not to offer names),
f) ask a few people where Sigfreed might have gotten such an
impression about Borg,
g) tell Borg that Sigfreed is saying that Borg is a stubborn
person.
Assuming that we all have pretty much the same ideas
about what "confidentiality" means, I think it is fairly
obvious that most people would agree that either a), b) or
c) would be correct behaviors, and that d) and (possibly)
e) might be okay under some circumstances but f) and g) are
definitely out of line. I suspect that d) and e) are in the
area in which leaking of confidential information is most
likely to occur. Sure, it is possible that someone has
decided to ignore a more conventional meaning of the word
confidential to suit a personal agenda. Or it is possible
that they are operating with a different understanding of
what most people mean by "confidential." But - for the
most part - indiscretion in this context is a result of
simply sharing more information than intended while trying
to verify something we need to be certain about.
On the whole, I think most people understand that is
something that can happen. I also think that what people
are really concerned about is that confidentiality is not
being observed as a convention, and as promised during the
process.
That must remain a legitimate concern.
And the reason why that is the case is that it is
necessary in getting honest and unambiguous feedback about
people that the people being asked _believe_ that they're
comments will be kep confidential.
--
Eric Gray
Principal Engineer
Ericsson
-----Original Message-----
From: ietf-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
[mailto:ietf-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org] On
Behalf Of Dave Crocker
Sent: Wednesday, March 19, 2008 1:11 PM
To: IETF Discussion
Subject: Nomcom process realities of "confidentiality"
G'day,
The current discussion about Nomcom activities has been
sufficiently
professional and constructive in tone to prompt me to raise a
particularly
delicate point:
Just how realistic is our belief in confidentiality for
the process?
It will be trivial to turn my query into an unintended attack
on personal
integrity. That's not what I intend and I hope it is not
what anyone does.
Indeed, I won't participate in any exchanges that are of that type.
My view is that any problems are with unrealistic
expectations, rather than
personal failings. (Or rather, that personal failings occur
in all of us and we
need to make sure our institutional processes factor them in
realistically.)
Assumptions about confidentiality are at the core of many
difficulties
surrounding the Nomcom process. They restrict what
information Nomcom gets and
they restrict what information it gives. They also seem to
introduce distortions
in decision-making, as well as tensions.
That makes it worth ensuring that our expectations for
confidentiality along the
process match the reality.
For example,
I was on a Nomcom that considered whether to renew
someone and chose not to.
Input to Nomcom was extensive as was Nomcom's
consideration. The two Nomcom's
I've been on included a wide range of equally-experienced and
assertive IETF
folk. The affected person later communicated to me that they
had been told that
I directed the outcome.
Someone within the committee talked to them about details
of internal Nomcom
discussions. That they got the information seriously wrong
merely underscores
the danger of inaccurate assumptions about confidentiality.
(Factor in whatever
assessment might be made of my range of behaviors and one
still has to be left
with the view that the idea of my controlling any outcome of
either Nomcom is
simply silly.)
Were things more open, the person might have had access
to more than one
channel of description and might have been able to get a more
accurate sense of
what took place. Were things less open, then some sources of
distortion might
have been eliminated.
To be clear, as a non-Nomcom community participant, I
have at various other
times interacted with Nomcom members who drew very, very
strict lines around
information they would (not) share with me. Indeed my sense
over the years is
that everyone takes the requirement extremely seriously. But
taking the
requirement seriously is different from never violating it.
This was merely an example that I have first-hand
knowledge about.
To have a realistic model of confidentiality, we need a
realistic model of IETF
social processes.
For example, many of the people in the IETF management pool
are at least very
close friends. Liaisons are present during all Nomcom
discussions. The strain
on a liaison who is party to highly critical discussions
about a very close
friend strikes me as excessive: It is not reasonable to
expect them to maintain
confidentiality. And I repeat that I am offering this merely
as an example. And
note that the challenge is not only present for liaisons.
Add to this the fact that a) we have no detailed rules for
confidentiality but
rather treat the word as having implicit-but-total effect on
behavior, b) we
have no enforcement powers over violations, and c) Nomcom
members, IAB members,
IESG members and ISOC members typically do not have any
background in
maintaining confidentialities of these types.
(On item c), if you think that there is no need for training
or experience,
please think again. Organization personnel matters are
peculiar processes.)
The concept of Nomcom was a creative solution to the
challenge of making formal
community decisions in the absence of formal community
membership. That said,
the conduct of Nomcom processes tends towards pretty classic
personnel
assessment, but with people typically lacking classic
personnel training or
experience. Coupled with a lack of institutional
specification for the
construct or enforcement against "violations" and we are
certain to get
distorted processes.
I've been taught that any good security structure begins by
limiting what needs
to be secure and who security is expected from.
We ought to consider extremely carefully exactly what
confidentialities are
essential and exactly who needs to maintain them.
By way of example, I'll raise a question about Harald's
proposal to make
nominations for Nomcom consideration public but not who
agrees to be considered.
In the current IETF and Nomcom reality, I've offered a +1
for the proposal.
This note does not change my support of it. Rather, it's
helped me to reflect
on the larger issues.
In terms of overall process effectiveness and
confidentiality, is the proposal
realistic? The idea behind the proposal's distinction is
that keeping the exact
set of interested nominees confidential will protect a
nominee from, for
example, concerns that a competing candidate who is already
holding the position
will find out.
Does anyone seriously believe that someone sitting within
IETF management will
not know who is running against them? Please consider just
how tightly-knit the
IETF management community is. (And again, that's not a
complaint; it's a
reality, and I don't see that it can, or maybe even
should, change.)
In the face of sensitivities, it is convenient to seek to
avoid them. Invoking
"confidentiality" can be the convenient mechanism for this
convenient avoidance.
But convenience is not the same as utility.
Let me suggest that we at least discuss a model that begins
by allowing
everything to be open, and then imposes restrictions only
when there is
agreement on a compelling need for it, and that the
restriction be defined on
the smallest possible group of people.
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net
_______________________________________________
IETF mailing list
IETF(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________
IETF mailing list
IETF(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________
IETF mailing list
IETF(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
|
|