Hi Adrian
It depends on the definition of politicking. In this, umm, draft, there's this
definition:
"An organized campaign that seeks selection of a particular nominee"
So you can't promote Dave all by yourself. You'll have to get a bunch of people
sending over-the-top opinions ("Dave will save the world as AD. Electing him
ensures a cure for cancer and world peace over IPv6"). It's this organized
effort that gets reported. It is then up to the NomCom to consider this, just
like any other piece of information. If they conclude that this is an attempt
to sabotage Dave's candidacy, they can choose to ignore it. OTOH they can
choose to wonder why Dave generates such animosity, that people go to all this
trouble.
Of course, if they notice that a dozen people working for the same company send
in such opinions about Dave, they may choose to ignore all opinions from that
group.
You may be right. This is looking more investigative than the NomCom can be
expected to do.
Yoav
On Jul 18, 2010, at 1:58 PM, Adrian Farrel wrote:
Hi Dave,
I read the Summary
(http://www.bbiw.net/specifications/IETF-Nomcom-Process-Summary.html) -
timing being short at the moment. Looks mainly very good.
In Section 5.2 I find...
RECOMMENDATION -- Politicking
- Any evidence of politicking should be reported to Nomcom and should be
treated as a significant, negative factor when considering the nominee who
is intended to benefit from the politicking.
It may be that my mind is unnecessarily devious, but it seems to me that
this assumes that either no-one will execute a bluff, or that Nomcom will
detect it. That is, if I wish to ensure that Dave Crocker does not become
the next Foo Area Director, I could engineer a campaign of lobbying in his
support. According to your recommendation, this would have a significant
negative impact.
IMHO, the actions of others have absolutely zero relevance to the competence
of an individual performing their IETF management tasks. NomCom should
consider only material facts (positive or negative) and should not be
distracted by any politicking or lobbying.
I note that this is probably a simplistic statement since the line between
sending your fair and honest opinion that Dave would be good or bad as the
Foo AD can only truly be construed as not lobbying if you are entirely
unconcerned as to whether the final selection matches your own preferences
and opinions.
It may also make a difference if it is the candidate who is organising or
instigating the lobbying on his own behalf. But determining this is likely
to require some form of court! So perhaps it is best to simply stick to the
candidates' competences, and to interviews advised by feedback from the
community.
Cheers,
Adrian
----- Original Message -----
From: "Dave CROCKER" <dhc2(_at_)dcrocker(_dot_)net>
To: "IETF Discussion" <ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>
Sent: Saturday, July 17, 2010 4:48 PM
Subject: Nomcom Enhancements: Improving the IETF leadership selection
process
Folks,
Nomcom has been an integral part of the IETF for nearly 20 years.
A number of us have been developing a set of recommendations designed to
adapt the Nomcom process to better match current realities of the IETF
community. The draft has progressed far enough to call for public
consideration.
Some of the proposal's recommendations require no changes in formal rules.
They
can be adopted immediately, possibly by the current Nomcom, should it so
choose.
Others require a formal development and approval cycle.
At:
<http://www.bbiw.net/recent.html#nomcom2010>
there is a copy of the Full Proposal, and a Summary which primarily
contains just the recommendations.
The proposal's Abstract is:
Every year the IETF's Nominating Committee (Nomcom) reviews and selects
half
of the IETF's leadership on the IESG, IAB and IAOC/Trust. In the 18 years
since the inception of the Nomcom process, the Internet industry and the
IETF
have gone through many changes in funding, participation and focus, but
not
in the basic formation, structure or operation of Nomcom. This paper
explores
challenges that have emerged in the conduct of Nomcom activities,
particularly due to changing IETF demographics. The paper reviews the
nature,
causes and consequences of these challenges, and proposes a number of
specific changes. The changes provide better communication of Nomcom
institutional memory, enhance Nomcom membership expertise, and produce
stronger confidentiality and etiquette practices among Nomcom
participants.
Some changes require formal modification to Nomcom rules; others can be
adopted immediately.
Please feel free to discuss the proposal with any of the authors or folks
listed
in the Acknowledgments section, or on this list.
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net
--
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
Scanned by Check Point Total Security Gateway.
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf