Subject: Re: [Eligibility-discuss] Suggestions for nomcom chair selection?

From: Spencer Dawkins at IETF <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 2020 11:00:57 -0500

For what it's worth ...

On Fri, Aug 14, 2020 at 6:10 PM Michael Richardson <[email-masked]>
wrote:

>
> Andrew Sullivan <[email-masked]> wrote:
>

<snip>

>
>     > The trouble I have is that I don't really know where to start except
>     > with the approaches I have, which are mostly informal and depend upon
>     > the social-professional networks I have as well as those of others.
>     > That seems like a poor foundation on which to build, so I thought I'd
>     > ask to see whether people here have other suggestions for a starting
>     > point.
>
> The set of previous nomcom chairs started to meet a few times about various
> things.   I think Montreal (105) was the last time.  I think that this
> group
> of people is a good place to start this discussion.
> Perhaps making this group slightly more formal in some way.

Russ Housley had a semi-formal design team of past Nomcom chairs meeting
when he was still Gen AD. I was their note-taker.

Their discussions resulted in
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-dawkins-nomcom-3777-issues-00, which was
used as the basis of several updates to then-RFC3777, the most obvious of
which was the move to Open Lists of requests for feedback.

I'm glad that past chairs have continued to talk. Is anyone taking notes?
:-)

Best,

Spencer, who learned a lot about Nomcom, just from listening

> If we started from scratch, I think that the appointment of the nomcom
> chair
> would have been assigned to the LLC.  Should the LLC be more involved?
>

---

From: 'Andrew Sullivan' <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 2020 14:01:48 -0400

Hi,

Sorry for the long RTT; I'm pulled in a lot of directions these days.  For the avoidance of doubt, I'm still the ISOC President and speaking in that role, though I'm using this address for convenience.

On Sat, Aug 15, 2020 at 09:51:11AM +0100, Adrian Farrel wrote:
>
>As I read your mail there are two questions that arise:
>1. How can the ISOC President continue to select quality NomCom chairs
>2. Should we consider a transition to some other way of selecting the NomCom
>chair
>

I think that's right.

>and you've already seen emails on the topic. It might help the discussion if
>we could hear from you a brief list of qualities you are looking for. I
>could suggest a number such as: history of involvement with the IETF;
>familiarity with people and task management; a bit of a process wonk;
>personally willing to make the commitment; funded to do the work. But it
>might be better to have your thoughts rather than my second-guesses. This
>list will, I believe, not be used to judge how you make the selection, but
>will be helpful to the community in suggesting where you might find
>candidates.

I think that's right, but I think the weight of "willing to do this" and "has the support to do this" are a bigger consideration than you might think.  In general, the job is a heavy one without I think much in the way of benefit, so it's difficult to ask people to do it -- especially because the commitment runs at least two years.

I also look for people who are likely to be able to herd volunteers to be successful.  One thing I observed generally but perhaps more acutely when I was the IAB liaison to the nomcom was the potential fragility of the whole thing: these are volunteers pulled from a hat, and many of them may be sufficiently unfamiliar with the roles they're selecting from that they face a daunting challenge.  A common path to that is to attempt to solve the problem with information: more questionnaires, longer interviews, and so on.  These approaches, however, have their own problems and often don't resolve the doubts of the voting members.  So, a good chair needs to have enough management skill to get the nomcom to focus on the questions at hand and to be confident enough to make decisions with inadequate information (sometimes, to learn that skill).  Since the nomcom chair has literally no power over the voting members, this is a fine balance.

A similar balance is needed in the other direction: some years, the random numbers appoint a person with very strong views who can tend to dominate the nomcom discussions as he or (to rarely, I'll note) she tends to dominate WG discussions.  There is no way to know whether that is going to happen when one is selecting the chair, so one has to select on the assumption that it _will_ happen, because a chair who wouldn't be able to deal with such a circumstance would create a different problem.

All of this requires sensitivity and management skills that are, unfortunately, not really a set that tend to be selected for in the IETF.

I hope that helps.

>The second issue should be approached with great care. You and the past ISOC
>Presidents have served us well in this respect and we should be slow to
>throw that away. In addition, as others have pointed out, some degree of
>separation between those appointed by NomCom and the appointment of the
>NomCom chair is highly desirable. But your point that you are gradually
>becoming less familiar with the IETF community is important and I can
>imagine that a things develop it could get harder and harder so that even
>with a list of volunteers or recommendations, it would be hard for the ISOC
>President to make a reliable appointment.

I am not by nature inclined to throw away things that are working, but I think some of the recent discussions I have observed in the IETF (and elsewhere) make me wonder what "working" means.  I must say, speaking personally, certain recent discussion have made me feel terribly alienated from the IETF and make me question my suitability to appoint anyone to any position of any kind.  I think that can only get worse over time, since I can no longer make useful contributions to the work of the IETF (assuming I ever was able to) and so will inevitably be out of touch with good current candidates.

Thanks and best regards,

A

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
[email-masked]

---

From: Michael Richardson <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 09 Sep 2020 16:06:39 -0400

'Andrew Sullivan' <[email-masked]> wrote:
    > I also look for people who are likely to be able to herd volunteers to
    > be successful.  One thing I observed generally but perhaps more acutely
    > when I was the IAB liaison to the nomcom was the potential fragility of
    > the whole thing: these are volunteers pulled from a hat, and many of
    > them may be sufficiently unfamiliar with the roles they're selecting
    > from that they face a daunting challenge.  A common path to that is to
    > attempt to solve the problem with information: more questionnaires,
    > longer interviews, and so on.  These approaches, however, have their
    > own problems and often don't resolve the doubts of the voting members.
    > So, a good chair needs to have enough management skill to get the
    > nomcom to focus on the questions at hand and to be confident enough to
    > make decisions with inadequate information (sometimes, to learn that
    > skill).  Since the nomcom chair has literally no power over the voting
    > members, this is a fine balance.

    > A similar balance is needed in the other direction: some years, the
    > random numbers appoint a person with very strong views who can tend to
    > dominate the nomcom discussions as he or (to rarely, I'll note) she
    > tends to dominate WG discussions.  There is no way to know whether that
    > is going to happen when one is selecting the chair, so one has to
    > select on the assumption that it _will_ happen, because a chair who
    > wouldn't be able to deal with such a circumstance would create a
    > different problem.

Your analysis is spot on, and hits home.
I now realize that I dealt with both situations, and I'm reflecting a bit on,
  "gosh, did I actually manage to handle that?"

{It didn't seem such a big deal at the time}

    > All of this requires sensitivity and management skills that are,
    > unfortunately, not really a set that tend to be selected for in the
    > IETF.

Yes, but I think that these skills are:
  1) somewhat trainable
  2) valuable to have all over the IETF.

Which leads me to suggest that ISOC and/or the LLC ought to consider if this
is worth investing directly in.  I seem to remember making such a suggestion
in a different way a while ago, and it was not well understood.

Graduates of such a course might be good foder for nomcom chairing :-)
Cynically, it's like a time-share condo presentation...

    > I am not by nature inclined to throw away things that are working, but
    > I think some of the recent discussions I have observed in the IETF (and
    > elsewhere) make me wonder what "working" means.  I must say, speaking
    > personally, certain recent discussion have made me feel terribly
    > alienated from the IETF and make me question my suitability to appoint
    > anyone to any position of any kind.

Oh no.

Imposter syndrome in the middle of a pandemic, and we can't take you out and
get you drunk!   (Not that this will solve the problem)

    > I think that can only get worse
    > over time, since I can no longer make useful contributions to the work
    > of the IETF (assuming I ever was able to) and so will inevitably be out
    > of touch with good current candidates.

--
Michael Richardson <[email-masked]>   . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting )
           Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide

---

From: Michael StJohns <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 2020 16:28:49 -0400

On 9/9/2020 2:01 PM, 'Andrew Sullivan' wrote:
> I think some of the recent discussions I have observed in the IETF 
> (and elsewhere) make me wonder what "working" means.  I must say, 
> speaking personally, certain recent discussion have made me feel 
> terribly alienated from the IETF and make me question my suitability 
> to appoint anyone to any position of any kind.  I think that can only 
> get worse over time, since I can no longer make useful contributions 
> to the work of the IETF (assuming I ever was able to) and so will 
> inevitably be out of touch with good current candidates. 

As I was re-reading this thread, I came up with a fairly strange idea.

Let's let the Nomcom select the next Nomcom chair, with the approval of 
the IAB and IESG.

Minimum ( non-waivable) qualifications:  Must have served on the Nomcom 
within the last 6 years (not including the current one). Must not have 
served as chair within the last 10. Must have at least 2 up votes  
(recommendations) from people (voting members?) who were on their same 
Nomcom.  Must not be working for the same company as any of the previous 
5 chairs were when they served as chairs.  (Each of those numbers is 
arbitrary - can be twiddled for balance - here just as a suggested 
starting point)

Later, Mike

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2020 08:48:23 +1200

On 10-Sep-20 08:28, Michael StJohns wrote:
> Let's let the Nomcom select the next Nomcom chair, 

That occurred to me to, by a slightly different path:

"Oh, it seems like we need a nominating committee for the NomCom
Chair, how can we do that?"

> with the approval of 

No, I don't think so. That's a bit too close to self-perpetuation.
Stick to confirmation & announcement by the ISOC President, with
some words that allow the latter to push back if they see a problem.

Alternatively: Leave it with the ISOC President, but with an advisory
committee consisting of (say) the last 3 NomCom chairs.

    Brian

---

From: Michael Richardson <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 09 Sep 2020 17:07:42 -0400

> Let's let the Nomcom select the next Nomcom chair, with the approval of the
    > IAB and IESG.

    > within the last 6 years (not including the current one). Must not have served
    > as chair within the last 10. Must have at least 2 up votes  (recommendations)
    > from people (voting members?) who were on their same Nomcom.  Must not be
    > working for the same company as any of the previous 5 chairs were when they
    > served as chairs.  (Each of those numbers is arbitrary - can be twiddled for
    > balance - here just as a suggested starting point)

I think that this might be overconstrained, but I certainly like the idea.

    > some words that allow the latter to push back if they see a problem.

Agreed.

    > committee consisting of (say) the last 3 NomCom chairs.

Well, Andrew hasn't asked for my advice, but Kathy certainly did, so
in effect I suspect this is really already happening.

---

From: Andrew Sullivan <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 2020 17:23:38 -0400

On Wed, Sep 09, 2020 at 04:28:49PM -0400, Michael StJohns wrote:
>
>Let's let the Nomcom select the next Nomcom chair, with the approval 
>of the IAB and IESG.

One complaint I have heard repeatedly is that the nomcom is already overloaded.  Beating the bushes for a good candidate and deciding on one this way strikes me as another pretty big burden.  I am certainly willing to try it, however, if people want: I would agree to appoint whomever was selected that way, so that we didn't actually need to make a process change to try it out.  Of course, we'd have to get a nomcom to agree to add this to their plate!

Best regards,

A

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
[email-masked]

---

From: Michael StJohns <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 2020 17:53:54 -0400

On 9/9/2020 5:23 PM, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
> One complaint I have heard repeatedly is that the nomcom is already 
> overloaded.  Beating the bushes for a good candidate and deciding on 
> one this way strikes me as another pretty big burden. I am certainly 
> willing to try it, however, if people want: I would agree to appoint 
> whomever was selected that way, so that we didn't actually need to 
> make a process change to try it out.  Of course, we'd have to get a 
> nomcom to agree to add this to their plate!
>
> Best regards,
>
> A
>
One of the things here is that the selection period for the chair is 
distinct from the normal work period for the Nomcom.  Say they start in 
March and finish in July for the selection of the next chair?  Or even a 
much shorter period than that  - May to June - given that there's only 
one slot being filled.

Later, Mike

---

From: Michael Richardson <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 09 Sep 2020 18:38:37 -0400

> March and finish in July for the selection of the next chair?  Or even
    > a much shorter period than that  - May to June - given that there's
    > only one slot being filled.

Let me suggest that the Nomcom N (for years N/N+1), does not select
for Nomcom N+1, but for Nomcom N+2.

Nomcom N could work on this from January to March in year N+1.
They have to stick around waiting for the IAB to confirm IESG members, and
answer queries, and other stuff anyway.

Having selecting the chair for Nomcom N+2, that person could be appointed in
October of year N+1, and if Nomcom N+1 is happy, they could join as
Chair-Elect, learning the ropes by watching much easier.
This is what Allison had proposed, and I tried push convince people it was a
good idea, but did not get far.

This has a initialization challenge where in the first year we need to find
a chair for year 0 (in March), and for year 1 (by October), but aside from
that, it's not any more arduous, I think.

--
]               Never tell me the odds!                 | ipv6 mesh networks [
]   Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works        |    IoT architect   [
]     [email-masked]  http://www.sandelman.ca/        |   ruby on rails    [

---

From: "STARK, BARBARA H" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2020 01:10:59 +0000

> the
> served

Note that the current NomCom chair has no prior NomCom experience. 
I suspect this was not for lack of asking prior NomCom participants.
I suggest being careful adding constraints to a position that many people
do not want. Or adding length of term / time commitment (e.g., 3 years 
as chair-elect, chair, and then past chair advisor, instead of the current 2).
Barbara

---

From: Michael Richardson <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2020 11:19:50 -0400

STARK, BARBARA H <[email-masked]> wrote:
    >> of the > IAB and IESG.
    >> > Minimum ( non-waivable) qualifications:  Must have served on the
    >> Nomcom > within the last 6 years (not including the current one). Must
    >> not have served > as chair within the last 10. Must have at least 2 up
    >> votes  (recommendations) > from people (voting members?) who were on
    >> their same Nomcom.  Must not be > working for the same company as any
    >> of the previous 5 chairs were when they > served as chairs.  (Each of
    >> those numbers is arbitrary - can be twiddled for > balance - here just
    >> as a suggested starting point)
    >>

    > Note that the current NomCom chair has no prior NomCom experience.  I
    > suspect this was not for lack of asking prior NomCom participants.  I
    > suggest being careful adding constraints to a position that many people
    > do not want.

    > Or adding length of term / time commitment (e.g., 3 years

a) I think that the past-chair effort really ends around December.
   I personally found the past-chair effort rather easy.

b) More and earlier training of the current chair probably makes the job
   lighter late on.

But, I can respect that this seems scary looking at it.

So I claim that introducing the chair-elect earlier might not really be that
much more of a time commitment, the commitment is just shifted earlier.
The past-chair/chair relationship is important, so establishing it earlier
seems to be useful to me.
I was fortunate in that I was a voting member of the previous nomcom.

---

From: Mirja Kuehlewind <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2020 18:08:21 +0200

For what it’s worth: When I newly joint the IETF and didn’t know the process at all, I was actually kind of naturally assuming that the current NomCom would select the chair for the next NomCom out of its members…

> On 10. Sep 2020, at 17:19, Michael Richardson <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> 
> Eligibility-discuss mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/eligibility-discuss

---

From: Victor Kuarsingh <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2020 13:01:48 -0400

> much shorter period than that  - May to June - given that there's only

Thats a good idea, but perhaps Feb - March should be the work period?
Giving the Chair Apr, May to get going is a good idea IMO.

regards,

Victor K