[email protected]
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Adjusting the Nomcom process

Subject: Re: Adjusting the Nomcom process
From: Dave Crocker
Date: Tue, 05 Sep 2006 12:44:37 -0700

John C Klensin wrote:
--On Tuesday, September 05, 2006 3:10 PM -0400 Keith Moore <[email protected]> wrote:
On balance, I think it would be preferable to make candidates'
names public as long as their consent is obtained before doing

I do not understand how it can be reasonable to have some candidates' names disclosed and others' not. That makes things remarkably complex.

An IETF position entails massively public behavior. If a candidate cannot tolerate public scrutiny during the selection process, what does that say about their personal fragility and likely methods when in office?

(On the matter of fragility, I am merely acknowledging that having candidates' names be public will likely result in there being unprofessional behavior by some IETF participants, in making public comment, rather than comment restricted to the Nomcom, and probably making comments about personality rather than performance.)

One thing to watch out for in these proposals is that the Nomcom now has the ability to brainstorm, conclude that person X would be a better candidate for a particular position than any of the already-suggested candidates, and then go out an start twisting X's arm. The idea is

I was not offering any comment -- nevermind any suggestion for change -- on the method(s) for obtaining candidates. Rather, once a candidate is formally under Nomcom consideration, then their name would be made public,

While it is probably not impossible to reconcile it with public lists of candidates, reconciling the two might require some effort.

I do not understand what "reconciling" is needed. Whenever a candidate becomes a formal candidate, their name gets published.

OK. For efficiency, the Nomcom might do some aggregations. For example, it might choose to wait for completion of an initial slate of candidates, before publishing any of their names. I am not sure we need to dictate this.

How about a specific proposal, folks? You and Dave clearly know how to do that, even if some others who make a lot of postings to this list don't seem to.

1. I'm not sure what additional language is needed, above what I've written here.

2. I'm not sure how a 'formal' proposal gets submitted, nor am I hopeful it will be productive, given the disposition of most/all process proposals over the last 5 years.


  Dave Crocker
  Brandenburg InternetWorking

Ietf mailing list
[email protected]

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>