On 3/20/2013 11:21 AM, Mary Barnes wrote:
On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 11:10 AM, Keith Moore
<moore(_at_)network-heretics(_dot_)com> wrote:
So I guess I've formed the impression that merely being nominated for a
position doesn't really mean that a person is available.
[MB] You have to keep in mind in the past that the there were
"dummies" in the nominee pool before open list. I was explicitly told
by this year's nomcom chair that they were not doing that. Thus, I
would anticipate that the majority of those in the pool this year were
willing and able.[/MB]
Both of you are right, of course.
Before OpenList, the list of nominees willing to be considered was
treated as confidential. Nomcoms that wanted to ask for input on
specific people sent out lists of nominees that were padded, as Keith
says, so that there were "dummies" (usually described as "ringers"), and
theoretically no one outside Nomcom knew precisely who was being considered.
When we approved http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc5680.txt in 2009, it
added this text to RFC 3777:
The list of nominees willing to be considered for positions under
review in the current NomCom cycle is not confidential. The
NomCom may disclose a list of names of nominees who are willing to
be considered for positions under review to the community, in
order to obtain feedback from the community on these nominees.
> The list of nominees disclosed for a specific position should
> contain only the names of nominees who are willing to be
> considered for the position under review.
The NomCom may choose not to include some names in the disclosed
list, at their discretion.
The NomCom may disclose an updated list, at their discretion. For
example, the NomCom might disclose an updated list if the NomCom
identifies errors/omissions in a previously disclosed version of
the disclosed list, or if the NomCom finds it necessary to call
for additional nominees, and these nominees indicate a willingness
to be considered before the NomCom has completed its
deliberations.
Nominees may choose to ask people to provide feedback to the
NomCom, but should not encourage any public statements of support.
NomComs should consider nominee-encouraged lobbying and
campaigning to be unacceptable behavior.
IETF community members are encouraged to provide feedback on
nominees to the NomCom, but should not post statements of support/
non-support for nominees in any public forum.
So, the assumption before 2009 was that lists were padded, and the
assumption after 2009 is that lists aren't padded. The Nomcom can do
what seems right, of course.
Spencer