Subject: Re: [Iasa20] Director Sources - Some Options

From: "Livingood, Jason" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 8 May 2018 19:31:07 +0000

On 5/8/18, 3:06 PM, "iasa20 on behalf of Stephen Farrell" <[email-masked] on behalf of [email-masked]> wrote:
    I'm neutral as to whether
    the IAB or IESG even have an appointment, so would also be fine
    with "5 appointed by nomcom, confirmed by IESG." I think I'd
    even prefer nomcom appointing 5.
    
    My reason is that I've seen the same people volunteer for IAOC
    via nomcom and IESG and that always seemed pointless to me and
    just a source of confusion between nomcom and the other body.

[JL] Interesting point. Similarly, ISOC board candidates that are up for consideration for either an org-elected or chapter-elected seat are sometimes indifferent to which path the should go down, or they've been nominated for consideration in both categories.

---

From: Spencer Dawkins at IETF <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 16 May 2018 13:30:11 -0500

Just to confirm one point -

On Tue, May 8, 2018 at 2:31 PM Livingood, Jason <[email-masked]>
wrote:

> On 5/8/18, 3:06 PM, "iasa20 on behalf of Stephen Farrell" <
> [email-masked] on behalf of [email-masked]> wrote:
> [JL] Interesting point. Similarly, ISOC board candidates that are up for
> consideration for either an org-elected or chapter-elected seat are
> sometimes indifferent to which path the should go down, or they've been
> nominated for consideration in both categories.
>

I've seen what Stephen described - people who volunteered (or were
nominated) on both paths - both as an IESG member, and as an IAB member.

There are a few alternatives, and none are great.

   - All of the people being considered are being considered by both
   bodies, and all of the people providing feedback provide the same feedback
   to both bodies, so we're asking people who are willing to provide feedback
   once, to provide feedback twice.
   - One body can get feedback that would affect the decision of the other
   body, if they also saw that feedback.
   - Some of the people under consideration are being considered by both
   bodies, but not all, so it's not obvious how you get the best two people
   out of the combined set of nominees - the best and second-best person may
   only be considered by Nomcom, which can only choose one, so the other body
   picks the third-best person. Yay.
   - Or for extra credit, you'll note that Nomcom isn't required to ask the
   community for comments, but it seems like every Nomcom since 2011 has, and
   both IAB and IESG also post nominee names asking for feedback. So the
   selecting bodies bodies can try to guess what the other body is going to
   do, because there really are situations where you would choose a different
   person, if you knew who the other body would choose (say, because you know
   the board requires expertise in Fluge, and if you knew the other body
   wasn't picking someone with expertise in Fluge, you'd value that more
   highly, but if that's covered, you may want to focus on something else).
   - With the two bodies on different schedules, it's never obvious who is
   going to name their candidate for confirmation first, and you can see each
   body hoping the other body will announce first, so they'll know what to do
   in response.

If this isn't Prisoner's Dilemma territory, it's gotta be close.

Spencer, who has served on IABs and IESGs that confirmed IAOC members, but
who likely hasn't seen all the Twisty Little Paths ... you knew that
Adventure training was gonna come in handy, right?