--On Wednesday, March 06, 2013 09:35 -0800 Dave Crocker
<dhc(_at_)dcrocker(_dot_)net> wrote:
...
It has always been an election process. Nomcom does the
voting.
Candidates formulate their questionnaire responses and their
Nomcom interviews in a manner to cast themselves in the most
appealing light. They've decided they want the job, so they
seek to convince Nomcom to choose them.
I believe it is still possible to have a candidate who is
willing to take a position out of a sense of obligation to the
community rather than "wanting the job". Such a candidate might
include information, including reflections on the position and
possible other candidates, in a questionnaire that should
absolutely not be made public. Pushing candidates in directions
that either require questionnaire disclosure or that cause the
community to wonder why a particular candidate would not
disclose discourages such "willing but don't actually want the
job" candidacies in the future. I suggest that is not in the
interest of the community, YMMD.
Less likely, but still possible, a candidate may disclose
(presumably with permission based on the Nomcom's
confidentiality obligations when needed) truly confidential
material such as future job prospects or even plans within the
organization for which he or she currently works. Again, if the
candidate can't be assured that information will be kept
confidential, with no pressure to disclose, we essentially
discourage candidates who have information of that type that
then cannot be revealed to the Nomcom.
I suggest that is is not in the interest of the community to
discourage candidates in that sort of position either. Again,
YMMD.
...
Arguments against having the community see it are limited to a
concern about candidate privacy and a concern that it will
engender public commentary about the person.
The first doesn't make any sense; what specifically needs to
be kept private from the questionnaire response?
"Candidate privacy" in the examples I've given above may extend
to organizational privacy or issues that could jeopardize the
candidate's job.
To put something Sam (I think) said in a slightly different
light, we can made the process of being a candidate (and giving
the Nomcom whatever information it might want or need)
sufficiently unpleasant that the only people who will offer
their names are those who really, really, want the jobs, perhaps
because possessing one of those seats would be a good industry
move for their companies. Maybe eliminating candidacies from
those who would be qualified and willing to do the jobs but who
dislike the public disrobing, or eliminating anyone whose
companies are willing to support them in IETF leadership roles
but don't see corporate advantage in having them in those
positions, would be an acceptable tradeoff against disclosure of
questionnaires, job details, etc. I just don't happen to think
so, but I gather that you disagree.
The second is mitigated by simply prohibiting it.
That prohibition will work because there has never been a
whispering campaign in the IETF. Never.
john