On 9/15/08 at 12:05 PM -0400, Leslie Daigle wrote:
The pros of openness as you cite below; the cons included potential
for campaigning (if not the candidate themselves, people who
supported them), as well as difficulty in getting people to step
forward. We need to have some cultural sophistication if we're going
to ask Sue to run against incumbent Bob openly, given that Sue's WG
has documents waiting for Bob's approval.
I agree that it needs some cultural sophistication. However, I think
(even in the current state of less-openness) that if Sue is
uninclined to put her name in because she worries about Bob's
approval of her documents, Sue should be saying that to the NomCom
and the NomCom should toss Bob out on his ear. Bob himself should be
out there, encouraging Sue (and others) to put their names in, saying
things like, "Sue, you never know if I'm going to be run over by a
bus or lose my job. And it would be good experience for you to go
through the nominations process for when I step down. Get your name
in!" We should foster the cultural sophistication as much as possible.
Secondly, it's not really useful (to the whole system) if only some
candidates declare themselves publicly. If some people agree with
your exhortation below, other candidates for the same positions will
be more or less obliged to come out in order to ensure that the
NomCom gets adequate input on them, too.
The problem is, we currently have a state which is worse: A few
people are open about their candidacy (there is nothing in the rules
that stops that now), and they may get more feedback. Incumbents
always get lots of feedback. But then we have a large bunch of people
who (out of some notion of humility or feelings of not wanting to
insult incumbents) don't get their names public and don't get the
same kind of feedback. What I've suggested is designed to get people
to level the field a bit more.
My point: it's not a simple decision, and it really is something the
IETF community as a whole should come to grips with and have a
consistent policy for.
I agree that it's something we should document. I'm not convinced
that it is something we shouldn't start doing now.
On 9/15/08 at 1:09 PM -0400, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
I don't know whether this would be a good or bad thing, but I don't
think we should dismiss the observation that changing the rules,
even informally, changes the rules for everyone.
Remember, there's no rule change here. RFC 3777 does not forbid
anyone except for the NomCom from discussing nominees openly. I am
simply encouraging everyone to do this in a reasonable and level way.
pr
--
Pete Resnick <http://www.qualcomm.com/~presnick/>
Qualcomm Incorporated - Direct phone: (858)651-4478, Fax: (858)651-1102
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf