Subject: [ietf-nomcom] announcing list of willing candidates

From: James Galvin <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2009 11:50:06 -0500

-- On February 20, 2009 9:43:53 AM -0600 Spencer Dawkins 
<[email-masked]> wrote regarding [ietf-nomcom] Two (small) 
I-Ds now available for discussion --

>  http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-dawkins-nomcom-openlist-00
> .txt.

I have always been of the opinion that we should have been doing this. 
Way back when this process was first documented.

Count me supporting this 100%.

Jim

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 21 Feb 2009 11:03:06 +1300

> Count me supporting this 100%.

I agree that an open list is desirable, and I don't think it
would have caused me to refuse nomination in the years when
I've been considered.

The issue is that we've always had a wide range of opinions
on this in the past. Has that changed?

Nit:

      The list of candidates published should not contain
      candidates who have not indicated a willingness to serve in the
      position(s) under review.

Add something like:

      The published list should be updated if additional
      candidates indicate their willingness to serve in time
      to be considered by the NomCom.

   Brian

---

From: Leslie Daigle <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2009 18:17:46 -0500

Irrespectively of what one may think about publishing the list of 
willing candidates, there are (at least) 3 issues leftover from the last 
time this was discussed as a WG, that need to be addressed in this draft:

1/ Affecting the willingness of candidates.

It has been said that candidates will not stand up and visibly challenge 
  incumbents, who are (after all) still making decisions about the work 
they are presumably doing within the Area.

2/ Campaigning/lobbying

Once it is confirmed public knowledge who is willing to take up a 
particular role, what will be the ground rules for public lobbying? 
(Either by the person themselves, or their supporters)?  Or, should that 
be embraced directly, and is there more work to be done to specify what 
sort of statements the candidates should make publicly?

3/ Flexibility

NomComs sometimes find that their lists of willing candidates do not 
include the best candidate for the job, generally after the stated 
deadline for accepting nominations.  In the past, arms have been 
twisted, funding has been found, at very late dates.  This has even been 
for the better of the IETF as a whole.   This draft should address 
whether that will still be feasible, and under what conditions (or why 
the tradeoff is worth it).

As a general observation, I believe the draft conflates the issues of:

	. being public about the slate of willing volunteers; and
	. soliciting input from the entire community (not just the set
	  of people selected by a given NomCom)

and concludes that the accurate list should be published to the entire 
community.  These are actually separate issues, and a balanced draft 
should separate the possible outcomes, in my opinion.

Thanks,
Leslie.
(And, no, I've not ever been reluctant to state my willingness/not for a 
given position, but if we're going to have the discussion, I believe we 
have to have the WHOLE discussion).

James Galvin wrote:
> _______________________________________________
> ietf-nomcom mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-nomcom

-- 

-------------------------------------------------------------------
"Reality:
      Yours to discover."
                                 -- ThinkingCat
Leslie Daigle
[email-masked]
-------------------------------------------------------------------

---

From: Danny McPherson <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2009 16:44:57 -0700

On Feb 20, 2009, at 4:17 PM, Leslie Daigle wrote:

> willing candidates, there are (at least) 3 issues leftover from the  
> last time this was discussed as a WG, that need to be addressed in  
> this draft:
>
> It has been said that candidates will not stand up and visibly  
> challenge  incumbents, who are (after all) still making decisions  
> about the work they are presumably doing within the Area.

Time for folks to grow up here :-)

> (Either by the person themselves, or their supporters)?  Or, should  
> that be embraced directly, and is there more work to be done to  
> specify what sort of statements the candidates should make publicly?

It happens privately today, at least it's out on the table.

> twisted, funding has been found, at very late dates.  This has even  
> been for the better of the IETF as a whole.   This draft should  
> address whether that will still be feasible, and under what  
> conditions (or why the tradeoff is worth it).

I presume this is one of those things that this draft enables
to remain up to the processes of the nomcom itself, and would
think any additional prescriptive text here would be
undesirable.

> and concludes that the accurate list should be published to the  
> entire community.  These are actually separate issues, and a  
> balanced draft should separate the possible outcomes, in my opinion.

Yeah, I think that's a fair point, I hope Spencer can craft
text to accurately capture it.

> Thanks,
> Leslie.
> (And, no, I've not ever been reluctant to state my willingness/not  
> for a given position, but if we're going to have the discussion, I  
> believe we have to have the WHOLE discussion).

Yep!

-danny

---

From: Robert Elz <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 21 Feb 2009 16:16:28 +0700

Date:        Fri, 20 Feb 2009 18:17:46 -0500
    From:        Leslie Daigle <[email-masked]>
    Message-ID:  <[email-masked]>

  | Irrespectively of what one may think about publishing the list of 
  | willing candidates, there are (at least) 3 issues leftover from the last 
  | time this was discussed as a WG, that need to be addressed in this draft:

I agree with all of that, and those issues are strong arguments against
candidate name disclosure.

Further, I am not sure what the problem is supposed to be?   It seems
to be that the nomcom is somehow bothered that it isn't getting feedback
about (some) candidates because no-one knows they are candidates, and
they're seeking to rectify that.   Huh???   Not getting feedback about someone
is perhaps better information than getting it.   That indicates that no-one
is seriously considering that person as even a possibility for the role in
question.  On the other hand, when you get feedback, you have to try and 
figure out the motivations and relationships involved to understand how
reliable it is to be taken.  Why would anyone want to change this, and do
away with the best possible indicator of community sentiment that is available?

The only reason I can see for demanding explicit feedback would be if the
nomcom were effectively just counting "votes" - 9 respondents said that person
was great, with just one not so sure, looks good; this one got 4 goodish
replies and 4 not so good, do doubtful, and everyone we asked was opposed
to this other possibility, so the first of them wins...

That's not the way the nomcom is supposed to choose, or not the way I ever
believed it was supposed to happen.  Lists of known candidates, even more
campaigning, ... is just moving further and further towards straight out
voting, which is not really possible with the IETF, and wouldn't produce the
results that are needed anyway.

kre

---

From: "Spencer Dawkins" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 21 Feb 2009 07:05:59 -0600

I'm probably just being dense here, but I am confused...

> text to accurately capture it.

Are you guys thinking of two ISSUES here, or two OUTCOMES here? I'm having a 
hard time figuring out how we ask the entire community without telling them 
the entire slate - or were you thinking that you would (for example) ask 
people to go to a web page that would offer each respondent a SUBSET of 
names under consideration, so that no one sees the entire slate?

Cluelessly yours (sorry!),

Spencer

---

From: "Spencer Dawkins" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 21 Feb 2009 07:24:25 -0600

Hi, Robert,

Our mileage obviously differs.

I do most of my work in the RAI area, and try to support NomCom by providing 
feedback on candidates pretty much every year. I'm a working group co-chair, 
so I know all of the candidates for RAI AD who I've ever seen listed on a 
short list.

Without seeing a short list, I would be looking at providing feedback on 
about 15 reasonably serious potential candidates, every year. I try to 
provide concrete examples for my feedback - so it's not short, and not quick 
to provide.

I don't have to "cover the world" with my feedback - I'm a working group 
co-chair, so I do see a short list. I'd like for the general community to 
have the opportunity to provide feedback on willing candidates without 
having to play whack-a-mole with all of the leading potential candidates.

Other areas may very well not have this problem, and I accept that 
possibility.

Thanks,

Spencer

---

From: "Joel M. Halpern" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 21 Feb 2009 12:54:48 -0500

There are several different reasons why it would serve the community 
better if the list of willing nominees were public.
The current procedure produces an uneven result.  Some people are asked 
for feedback, and some are not.  The people who are asked are provided a 
shortlist.  But the people who are not asked have no information on 
which to base useful feedback.  This distinction does not help the 
community.

The current procedure also requires that the nominating committee come 
up with a list of people to ask, and what to ask them about.  We do our 
best.  However, I am certain that we miss folks who could give us useful 
feedback about people we are considering.

Without being given some sort of list it is very hard for folks to give 
the nominating committee useful feedback.  While some folks may provide 
one or two lines, some folks go to significant trouble to provide useful 
feedback.  We appreciate this work, and the information that is 
provided.  However, I can not see someone going to that kind of trouble 
about individuals whom they guess might be being considered.

Also, the nominating committee sometimes considers, and has even been 
known to pick, someone who is not an obvious candidate.  In that 
situation, without a list the committee will not get much feedback about 
this lesser-known (but potentially very viable) nominee.

The current procedure also requires folks to waste their time.  The 
committee is required to include ringers in the list, so as to avoid 
disclosing who they are actually considering.  This means that folks who 
are putting in effort to provide feedback are working hard to provide 
feedback we are going to have to ignore.  I would personally much prefer 
not to waste people's time.

The reason the feedback is necessary is that the nominating committee 
often does not personally know the individuals they are considering. 
Yes, the committee gets questionnaires.  Yes, the committee talks to 
many (not all) of the nominees.  Yes, the committee talks to other 
people about various aspects of the appointments.  Note even then that 
when we ask for those folks opinions on people, we currently have to 
play games even with them.  I wince when I read that part of the 
interview report.

I have been told that the original design of the system, and of the 
confidentiality handling, was based on the fact that folks who were at 
lots of meetings would know anyone worth considering.  While that may 
(or may not) have once been true, it is definitely not true now.  That 
is part of why the questionnaires were added several years ago.  That is 
why nomcom feedback collection methods were added.

Collecting feedback does not turn the process into an election / 
popularity contest.  It could.  But it is the committees job to turn the 
collecting feedback into useful information about the nominee.  And no, 
you don't do that by counting the yeses and nos.

There are drawbacks to disclosing the lists of willing nominees. One 
drawback is that if nominees are added later, they are probably also 
made public and that will telegraph certain facts.  On the other hand, 
it at least avoids the distinction where some folks know things, some 
folks jump to (often incorrect) conclusions, and other folks are just 
confused.

It will probably be important to make really clear to the community that 
nominees are on the list either because they nominated themselves, or 
because someone else nominated them.  It would be unfortunate if people 
were criticized just because the nominating committee was considering 
them for more than one slot.   Such multiplicity in the list of willing 
nominees is quite normal.  And I would not expect that public list to 
include any indication of comments from nominees such as "if you really 
need me to do X, I am willing, but I would much prefer Y."  That kind of 
information is indeed confidential, and very helpful to the committee.

Equally, we need to make very clear to the community and the incumbents 
that being willing to accept appointment (which is what we are making 
discussing making public) to a seat does not indicate dissatisfaction 
with the incumbent.  It does not indicate a problem.  Rather, it is 
helping the committee (and thereby the community) make the best choices. 
  It is the committees job to decide if the incumbent should be 
re-appointed.  This needs to be clearly emphasized even if we do not 
change our procedures.  Even if you, as an active person in an area, 
think the incumbent is doing a good job, please accept nomination 
anyway.  (Personally, if you think you could do the job and can get the 
time and support, please nominate yourself.)   If you like the 
incumbent, tell us that in feedback.  Don't use your own acceptance as 
that tool.  (Whether you choose, in your feedback, to tell the committee 
whether you think you can do a better job than the incumbent is entirely 
up to you.  It is perfectly sensible to provide feedback that says 
"persons X,Y, and Q could do a better job than me."  Preferably with 
some explanation of what it is about X, Y, and Q that you find good for 
the job.)
And yes, incumbents who get reappointed have to understand that 
volunteering for a slot they hold is NOT a criticism.  Otherwise, the 
nominating committee can't do its job.

Yours,
Joel M. Halpern

---

From: "Jeffrey A. Williams" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2009 20:01:20 -0800

Spencer and all,

  I also agree.  What is the point that is seemingly being attempted
to front end load whom might be "Appropriate" candidates?  Is there
some need for engaging in social engineering of this sort?  If so,
why?

> Cluelessly yours (sorry!),

Regards,

Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 284k members/stakeholders strong!)
"Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" -
   Abraham Lincoln
"YES WE CAN!"  Barack ( Berry ) Obama

"Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is
very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt

"If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B;
liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by
P: i.e., whether B is less than PL."
United States v. Carroll Towing  (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947]
===============================================================
Updated 1/26/04
CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS.
div. of Information Network Eng.  INEG. INC.
ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail
[email-masked]
My Phone: 214-244-4827

---

From: Russ White <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2009 11:30:12 -0500

> Further, I am not sure what the problem is supposed to be?   

There are several problems.... For instance:

1. Most people try to guess who the "ringers" are, and tune their
feedback around who those people are. Most people are wrong in their
guesses, hence, their feedback isn't always as useful as it could be.
And honestly, folks, who doesn't lobby with their feedback? Isn't that
what feedback is?

2. When there is a second call for candidates, the entire list isn't
released. People become doubly confused at this point, with some people
thinking someone not on the list who was previously on the list must
have been a "ringer," or is no longer under consideration, etc, etc.

I don't really see what's trying to be protected against by holding the
list of serious candidates "private."

That people might fear retribution? As Danny said, if this is a problem,
we need some adults.

That people will lobby? People are already lobbying, so that cat is
already out of the bag. In fact, part of the reason people try to guess
the "ringers" is to effectively lobby in a way that isn't obvious.

That people might be embarrassed? And the entire "second round
nominations" doesn't embarrass people already, in a way that's worse
than just opening the list would be?

That the list might not contain the best possible candidates? How does
making the list private help there? If the list were public, people
might actually have incentive to put their name in the ring. Otherwise,
they can assume it's being taken care of, and go on about their business.

IMHO, go to an open list. Go to a firm date for nominations, and get rid
of the "second round of nominations" calls for candidates when the
nomcom is unhappy with all the available options. Lets get all the
options on the table once, and only once, and make the best decision
possible at that point.

:-)

Russ

---

From: Leslie Daigle <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2009 13:45:37 -0500

Hi,

Noting that I said the draft should address these issues (even if it is 
to document why they are no longer applicable or should be moved on 
from), some further comments in-line:

> Time for folks to grow up here :-)

It is true that it is possible people should change opinions here 
(whether or not that entails "growing up").

But, given that it has been an issue in the past, acknowledging that it 
has been considered and is believed to be a worthwhile tradeoff would 
make a stronger document.

> It happens privately today, at least it's out on the table.

First, it's a _very_ different dynamic.

Second, a credible treatment of the change in dynamic would include 
whether or not it is appropriate, or even expected, to see letters of 
support or statements of intent on the IETF mailing list, or 
somewhere/anywhere else.

>> address whether that will still be feasible, and under what conditions 
>> (or why the tradeoff is worth it).
> 

Sorry, no.  If the point is to make all the candidates visible to the 
community to comment on, then how, exactly, shall the NomCom "flexibly" 
appoint someone that is identified after the  end of nominations?

Expectations need to be set -- should the community expect to see all 
candidates under decision to provide comment, for some period of time in 
advance?  Or to see some of the candidates some of the time? (And how 
quickly do you think that will generate consternation?).

Leslie.

>> (And, no, I've not ever been reluctant to state my willingness/not for 
>> a given position, but if we're going to have the discussion, I believe 
>> we have to have the WHOLE discussion).
> 
> Yep!
> 
> -danny

--

---

From: Leslie Daigle <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2009 13:48:53 -0500

Spencer,

Spencer Dawkins wrote:
> Are you guys thinking of two ISSUES here, or two OUTCOMES here? I'm 
> having a hard time figuring out how we ask the entire community without 
> telling them the entire slate - or were you thinking that you would (for 
> example) ask people to go to a web page that would offer each respondent 
> a SUBSET of names under consideration, so that no one sees the entire 
> slate?

There are 2 issues, that can be addressed with different outcomes:

Issue 1:  getting a broad enough set of feedback -- which means 
soliciting feedback from the entire community, based on some 
representation of the short list (which can include ringers)

Issue 2:  being accurate about the list of willing candidates (no 
ringers), irrespective of whether that is to solicit feedback from the 
entire community or just some NomCom-identified subset of hte community

Your draft concludes that publishing the list with ringers would waste 
cycles of IETF participants, which is true.  But, if the IETF community 
decided it still doesn't want to have a public list of only the list of 
willing volunteers, it would remain an option.

Leslie.

--

---

From: "Joel M. Halpern" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2009 15:02:27 -0500

I would actually agree with Leslie on the point below.
If we say that the list of willing nominees is public, then we better 
mean it.
That can mean a hard cutoff.
It can also mean that the nomcom can go twist arms, and then add those 
names to the visible list.
But we should not be unclear which of those two we intend.  While both 
paths are defensible, I think we have to explicitly pick one.

My own opinion is that we are better off allowing the nomcom to add 
names.  (including allowing the nomcom to reopen the list to the 
community to add names, as already happens too often for happiness.) 
Things happen.  Preventing such additions would be a bad idea.

Joel

PS: As a minor note, getting credible ringers who are willing and able 
to be listed, but not willing and able to serve, is harder than it 
looks.  And the ringer-pool leaks like a sieve because folks ask 
questions of people they know.  So the whole ringer procedure is 
difficult and much less than effective.  That's why I want both parts 
fixed.  (I have no objection to describing it as two issues, as long as 
they both get fixed.  Heck, I don't care if someone manages to describe 
it as 7 issues, as long as it gets fixed ASAP.)

>> On Feb 20, 2009, at 4:17 PM, Leslie Daigle wrote:
...

---

From: Christian Huitema <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2009 12:18:31 -0800

> it as 7 issues, as long as it gets fixed ASAP.)

For many potential candidates, " willing and able to serve" includes "I have checked with my boss and he is OK". IESG positions amount to at least a halftime job, so many bosses take some convincing before they authorize that. Now, how many do you believe are willing to engage in that kind of negotiation without a fairly good chance of being actually nominated?

-- Christian Huitema

---

From: Russ White <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2009 15:19:45 -0500

> That can mean a hard cutoff.

And I would agree with a hard cutoff.

> names to the visible list.

IMHO, the process of twisting arms should occur before the cutoff. There
is thinking within every nomcom I've served on that once the nomcom goes
and twists arms, all previous candidates should be disregarded,
regardless of the reason (a change in area a may cause a request for
more names in area b, discounting everyone originally on the list in
area a for no reason other than "that's an old name").

> Things happen.  Preventing such additions would be a bad idea.

The solution to "things happen" is to have a second viable slate chosen
in case something happens before the slate is actually announced and
approved all the way through the process. If the nomcom finds itself
with a single viable candidate, then the arm twisting should take place
before making a selection.

When one "seat" falls through, a lot of work is pushed into a much
shorter time frame, almost guaranteeing a less thought out decision to
be made. Adding the process of "twisting arms," and trying to redo
multiple decisions because people consider multiple decisions "linked"
in some way (which I also consider broken, BTW), only makes it virtually
impossible to think a reasonable, well thought out decision is going to
come out of the process.

When people are rushed, they revert to simple rules to make decisions.
"No more than x people from any given company," or "I prefer researchers
over manufacturers," or "Anybody but x!" Any time we can avoid these
"binary states," deal with real information, and try to do deep and
introspective thinking on what's really required, verses what's
available, the better the IETF will be served in the long term.

:-)

Russ

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2009 01:56:11 +1300

On 2009-02-24 09:19, Russ White wrote:
...
> before making a selection.

That might be the solution to some "things" that might happen, but
there might be other happenings for which this might not work. So I
think any rule change needs to be written with a clearly defined
escape route. If the procedure leads to an unexpected failure mode
such as ending up with zero candidates, then the NomCom is authorized
to reopen nominations, republish a list, etc. If we don't give
NomCom that discretion, I bet we'll regret it.

As for the general principle of publishing the list, it was suggested
to me today (in Beijing) that being nominated, even if not selected,
may be well viewed as an honour. (But that doesn't apply to self-
nominations, which raises yet another angle - should self-nominations
be identified in the list?)

   Brian

---

From: Russ White <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2009 08:42:24 -0500

> NomCom that discretion, I bet we'll regret it.

I would agree--but that it should be used as a last resort. We have had
far too much of "oh, none of these candidates work, lets go beat the
bushes," followed by a mad dash to interview, and then a mad run to
choose under the deadline, holding up of slates, etc. Maybe we should
appoint a "pre-nomcom arm twisting committee" to convince good people to
accept nominations, or a "pre-nominating committe," or some such.

IMHO, we are rushing decisions, which is never a good thing.

> be identified in the list?)

I don't see any problem with marking out self-nominations. And I would
agree that it's an honor to be nominated. There are a lot of sides to
the "public list" question, but I don't see the problems outweighing the
benefits.

For instance, if everyone knew who was being nominated, they would have
a better feel for the level of expertise, etc, on the current list. This
might actually help bring in more nominees, and reduce the amount of
"arm twisting" that needs to go on in the background.

:-)

Russ

---

From: "Joel M. Halpern" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2009 08:52:13 -0500

I had assumed that the source of the nominations was confidential.  As 
such, for self-nominations, the fact that it was a self-nomination would 
be confidential.  Given that it is important to get all the reasoanbly 
qualified people into the pool, this seems like the right path to me.

Joel

Brian E Carpenter wrote:
...

---

From: Leslie Daigle <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2009 12:01:46 -0500

> "arm twisting" that needs to go on in the background.

Note that this seems to assume that willing candidates are being posted 
as soon as they agree (as opposed to publishing the entire list of 
willing candidates after the close of nominations).

If that is the desired intention, it would be another point to capture 
in the documentation.

Leslie.

--

---

From: Leslie Daigle <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2009 12:04:05 -0500

FWIW:

Joel M. Halpern wrote:
 > difficult and much less than effective.

This is probably worth capturing in the draft, as well (as a motivation 
for -- this is factual, as opposed to concluding people don't want to 
"waste their time").

Leslie.

>> Noting that I said the draft should address these issues (even if it 
>> is to document why they are no longer applicable or should be moved on 
>> community to comment on, then how, exactly, shall the NomCom 
>> "flexibly" appoint someone that is identified after the  end of 
>> nominations?
>>
>>
>> candidates under decision to provide comment, for some period of time 
>> in advance?  Or to see some of the candidates some of the time? (And 
>> how quickly do you think that will generate consternation?).
>>
>>
>>
>> Leslie.
> 

--

---

From: "Spencer Dawkins" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2009 10:01:20 -0600

Just to let people know, I've revised this draft based on feedback from this 
mailing list. The new draft is available at 
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-dawkins-nomcom-openlist-01.txt.

I am, of course, always happy to see additional feedback... and if I 
misunderstood the comments you sent, please let me know that as well.

Thanks,

Spencer

---

From: "Jeffrey A. Williams" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2009 21:46:51 -0800

Spencer and all,

  A few comments/feedback even though I am not a candidate,
if that is ok with everybody.  Than a couple of questions about
your draft Spencer.  But thanks Spencer for providing this
draft as I sound it overall a good idea and a useful approach
to addressing the underlying concerns regarding willing and/or
preferred candidates.

  Comments:  I presently see no good reason to circumvent of
otherwise modify RFC3777.  Seems to me that perhaps some
very good candidates are or could be concerned that if giving
up some of their privacy/confidentiality even with guarantees of
protection, is too risky to wish to serve.  I can personally understand
that myself.

Question:  I am not sure if as worded in this draft what is meant
by "undesirable" behaviors in any context to the acceptance of
selection of candidates on the "Short list" or even in the making
up of the "Short list".  Note:  For everyone. While in the middle
of crafting this question and the above comments, I called Spence
on the phone and he kindly explained what he actually meant.
None the less, while reading this draft I became concerned
that perhaps some folks in the IETF was becoming involved
in areas of endeavor that seemed far out of the scope of the
IETF's areas of expertise.  Thanks for setting me straight
Spence!

P.S.  As a relief to some if not most, I would never desire
to chair any WG or similar within the IETF.  So I an sure
I would not make a "Exceptable Candidate" or "Desirable
Candidate", ergo the "Short list".  >:)

Regards,

---

From: Robert Elz <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2009 14:21:12 +0700

Date:        Mon, 23 Feb 2009 15:02:27 -0500
    From:        "Joel M. Halpern" <[email-masked]>
    Message-ID:  <[email-masked]>

What you said in this message I agree with totally ...

  | My own opinion is that we are better off allowing the nomcom to add 
  | names.

Absolutely - keep as much flexibility as possible.

  | PS: As a minor note, getting credible ringers who are willing and able 
  | to be listed, but not willing and able to serve, is harder than it 
  | looks.  And the ringer-pool leaks like a sieve because folks ask 
  | questions of people they know.

Of course, the whole list with ringers idea is silly.

  | That's why I want both parts fixed.

Yes, it should all be made clear.   But I suspect my way of resolving
it isn't the same as yours.   In particular, from your earlier message...

[email-masked] said:
  | Without being given some sort of list it is very hard for folks to give  the
  | nominating committee useful feedback.

It is harder, yes, but not impossible.   They may tell you nothing about
some some nominees, but as I indicated last time, that's useful information
in itself.

[email-masked] said:
  | The current procedure also requires folks to waste their time.  The
  | committee is required to include ringers in the list, so as to avoid
  | disclosing who they are actually considering. 

That is simply wrong.   Nothing in the procedures requires the nomcom
to create ringers (in fact, I challenge you to find an instance of the
word "ringer" (or anything semantically equivalent) in the current
nomcom procedures.

The nomcom are not required to "avoid disclosing who they are actually
considering", in fact rfc3777 section 5.12 explicitly allows the
normal confidentiality rules to be widened to include anyone with
whom the nomcom consults - provided they agree to keep the information
confidential.   In the absense of that agreement, the current procedures
require the nomcom's list to remain confidential, and exposing it with
what is (often) the equivalent of "Fred Flintstone", "George W Bush"
and a few others added, is NOT keeping it confidential.

I know that you believe that is necessary to send out lists to all kinds
of people to attempt to get feedback.    I disagree.   I believe that
it should be possible to get adequate feedback with the procedures as
they are now (implemented as written).   That is, you can ask authors
of drafts, WG chairs, etc, if they're prepared to keep some information
confidential, and if they agree, you can ask specifically about a
particular nominee for a specific position - you can, or not, also ask
about other possible positions they may be being considered for.

I have been asked like that in the past, and have no problem at all
agreeing, and then keeping the info confidential (though at least one
time I was asked, and agreed to keep info confidential, ringers were
added anyway - obvious ringers - for what purpose I can't imagine).

Just keep the whole thing confidential, almost all the other problems
go away - you can add names (by late nominations, or nomcom arm twisting)
any time you like, and no-one need ever know, there's less chance for
campaigning, and much less appearance of the whole thing turning into
a voting system.

The nomcom process should operate like, and be conducted like, any
other job filling head hunting exercise - and that almost always means
that people being considered stay confidential until they're appointed.

kre

---

From: Russ White <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2009 11:03:34 -0500

> protection, is too risky to wish to serve.  

I'm not certain how having an open list would remove someone's privacy
or confidentiality. You're concerned that someone might not put their
name up for fear of being rejected, and hence having their name listed
publicly for consideration for something they don't, eventually, end up
serving for?

I'm trying to sort how this would have a negative career impact, or how
this would violate someone's privacy (?), since you have to release a
list to get feedback anyway. What's really at stake is this:

1. There is a list of those who are nominated.

2. There is a list of those who are under consideration.

The differential between the two lists is designed to help the nomcom
sort through smaller subsets of information, making the process more
efficient. What we would be "unhiding" is the differential between these
two lists. I assume this differential is hidden to prevent the
embarrassment of being nominated, and not selected to be among the
"serious candidates."

What I fail to see is how this is any different from the embarrassment
that might result from being on the "short list," where the nomcom asks
specifically the community for feedback on people, and not being finally
selected. Or the embarrassment of being on the "short list" when the
nomcom asks for additional candidates (the second chance drawing),
implying those already on the list aren't considered "good
enough"--regardless of the reality behind the scenes.

There is an impression in the community that most people are not
considered serious candidates for reasons they can actually control.
After serving on three nomcoms, I can say I don't normally find this to
be the case. The process has definitely moved towards placing far more
weight on the name after the "@" sign in your email address, what your
background is (research/industry/provider/etc), and other factors.

Given this reality, there is absolutely _no_ reason for anyone to be
embarrassed about being nominated and not selected for additional
feedback, etc. I find the entire "second chance drawing" process much
more embarrassing to everyone involved than I do any sort of list unhiding.

:-)

Russ

---

From: "Joel M. Halpern" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2009 11:23:07 -0500

I consider that the notion of extending the confidentiality envelope to
more than 1000 people makes a mockery of the notion of confidentiality.
  Even national governments have trouble maintaining confidentiality
with much smaller sets of people, and they have legal remedies at their
disposable.  It just does not work.

To elaborate on the obvious question of why do so many people get 
solicited, I will point out several things.
Firstly, to get a broad spectrum of feedback, we have to ask a lot of 
people.  While not as bad as classic bulk mailing, the response rate is 
not good.  (And frequently, those who are diligently responding can only 
say "I don't know this person.")
Secondly, the list of all WG Chairs, all directorate members, and all 
authors of I-Ds in an area is actually quite a large group.  (And that 
is not counting the authors who are working in the area, but don't get 
caught by the automated scripts we use.)  And there there is the 
question of getting cross-area feedback, since ADs often have to work 
across areas.
Thirdly, the Nomcom would prefer not to be just asking the leadership, 
or just the folks well known to the nomcom.  One of the purposes of the 
creation of the nominating committee process in the first place was to 
avoid having the leadership appoint the leadership.  So it is actually 
necessary to have some way to reach out to the community.

One can argue about what threshold of questions makes a mockery of the 
process.  But any group large enough to do the nomcom any good is also 
large enough to leak like a sieve and call into question the 
effectiveness of the confidentiality.  We are dealing with human beings. 
  People like to talk.  They like to know things.

And, creating a large group of people, biased towards teh existing 
leadership, who know have a better ability to provide input, and leaving 
  a very large part of community in the dark, unable to provide much 
effective input, does not seem fair or appropriate.

Yours,
Joel

---

From: Christian Huitema <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2009 09:04:07 -0800

These discussions remain me a lot of discussions we had in the old IAB & IESG, pre 1992, about opening and transparency. Just like now, there were many arguments against transparency, because it is often quite inconvenient. But if you look at it the other way, in the absence of transparency, what you get is an "old boys club". For all its real or supposed inconvenience, transparency, and shining light on the process, generally ends up being much better than the alternative.

-- Christian Huitema

---

From: Leslie Daigle <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2009 12:57:02 -0500

It would be really interesting to know, if you can share, what the 
typical numbers were for actual feedbck on nominees, as a percentage.

I.e., an average percentage of responses (eg, 40% of people asked for 
input actually responded), and an average percentage of responses that 
were greater than 10 words long (which tosses out "I don't know this 
person" and "This person SUCKS!" -- which are equally uninformative 
feedback).

That's data, and it goes to the level of participation in the feedback 
process AND some objective measure of the value of the feedback (is it 
more than a 'vote').

Leslie.

Joel M. Halpern wrote:
>>   | My own opinion is that we are better off allowing the nomcom to 
>> add   | names.
>>
>>   | PS: As a minor note, getting credible ringers who are willing and 
>> able   | to be listed, but not willing and able to serve, is harder 
>> than it   | looks.  And the ringer-pool leaks like a sieve because 
>> folks ask   | questions of people they know.
>>

--

---

From: Robert Elz <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 28 Feb 2009 02:05:53 +0700

Date:        Fri, 27 Feb 2009 11:23:07 -0500
    From:        "Joel M. Halpern" <[email-masked]>
    Message-ID:  <[email-masked]>

  | I consider that the notion of extending the confidentiality envelope to
  | more than 1000 people makes a mockery of the notion of confidentiality.

I would too, and I'd never suggest sending confidential information to
so many people - nor do I see the need to do so.   You say that one of the
reasons is that the response rate is not good, and I'd expect that - but
to me this indicates that you're going about it the wrong way.

Rather than sending a whole bunch of (at least today), supposedly confidential
to many people, and hoping that some of them do the right thing with it,
I'd instead send the same list of people the question "would you be prepared
to provide some confidential information upon a nominee for an IETF
leadership position, and keep all information supplied confidential?" (in a
few more words than that probably) - and then wait for the responses.

Most likely the response will still not be good, but from positive responses
that you do get there's a very good chance than when given a specific
question you're going to get a high response rate.   This way you only
supply confidential information to those who have agreed to keep it
confidential, rather than to names from a hat that you try to tell "this
info must be kept confidential" without any agreement from them.   No wonder
the whole process leaks ...

I'd also tend to ask about just one nominee in a message - that is, rather
than giving a list of nominees and asking "which is best" (or what are the 
strengths/weaknesses amongst this group), I'd just ask for opinions about a
single person (nominee), and possibly a blanket final question "and is there
anyone else you know of who would, or would not be, good for this position?"

It is the nomcom's job to evaluate, not the person asked, they should be
being asked to select from a list.  If you get the answer "Sorry, know
nothing about him/her" than you can perhaps try the same person with a
different name from the nominee list - or even for a different position (all
random selections.)

  | Thirdly, the Nomcom would prefer not to be just asking the leadership, 
  | or just the folks well known to the nomcom.

Of course not, the pool of possible information sources should be as
wide as possible.  But that doesn't mean that you have to divulge much
information to every name you can come up with as a potential source for
information.  Get some kind of agreement first, then divulge just a little
information.

That is, in all of this, what seems to be happening is that a process has
been adopted, which doesn't work well, and what's being sought to be done
is to tweak the rules to make the process more effective.   I am suggesting
that it is the wrong process, and the right thing to do is to revise the
way that the information is being sought, and leave the rules alone.

  |   People like to talk.  They like to know things.

This relates to how likely it is for people to actually respect the
confidentiality request, as opposed to feeling the deep desire to
brag about how much they know more than some other sucker.   And yes,
there is something of that now - but this is all cultural, and it is
possible to change that kind of culture.   We can, if we want to,
change attitudes to one where revealing this kind of confidential information
is not something most people would even consider, and what's more,
where an attempt to reveal it would be rebuffed, and the person who
wanted to break confidentiality shunned.    Those kinds of attitude changes
happen - all it needs if for most people to agree that it is the right
thing to do.   There have been several major attitude changes like
this in general society in the past century or so - none are perfect,
but the change certainly occurred.

  | And, creating a large group of people, biased towards teh existing 
  | leadership, who know have a better ability to provide input, and leaving 
  |   a very large part of community in the dark, unable to provide much 
  | effective input, does not seem fair or appropriate.

Certainly, and no-one would suggest (I hope) that that's how it ought to
be done.  This also touches on Christian's recent message ...

[email-masked] said:
  | These discussions remain me a lot of discussions we had in the old IAB &
  | IESG, pre 1992, about opening and transparency. Just like now, there were
  | many arguments against transparency, because it is often quite inconvenient.
  | But if you look at it the other way, in the absence of transparency, what
  | you get is an "old boys club". For all its real or supposed inconvenience,
  | transparency, and shining light on the process, generally ends up being much
  | better than the alternative. 

And yes, of course, the process needs to be open and transparent.  That
doesn't mean that the data the process is manipulating needs to be open.

Since 1992 we have a randomly selected nomcom from as big a pool of
people we can find (and I still believe the selection criteria for that
are too narrow - there should be a much bigger potential nomcom pool).

There are liaisons who report back to their nominating bodies that
everything is proceeeding properly.

We have lots of process to make sure things are done the right way, we don't
also need to disclose the nominee names for this to remain open and
transparent.

Consider tenders for govt type purchases - it is important that the
process of evaluation be open, fair, and transparent, and it is
audited to ensure it remains that way (as much as is possible), but
that doesn't mean that details of every tended need to be made public
as part of the evaluation process.

And while I'm here, one more item for Leslie's original list of issues
that need to be considered (arguments against open lists of nominee
names) before a decision is made to change this policy.

It is entirely possible to assume that a potential nominee for a position
may refuse to allow themselves to be considered, if they see that some
other person is a nominee, and they feel that the other person would do
a more effective job than they can (whether that's false modesty or genuine).

If there nominee names are never known, that kind of thinking can't
happen - when asked, the person concerned might even say in their response
"I can do this if required, but I think Barney Rubble would be a better
choice" - never knowing if Barney is being considered or not.

With this, I think I'll exit this discussion, you all know my views now.

kre

---

From: "Jeffrey A. Williams" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2009 14:21:32 -0800

Russ and all,

Russ White wrote:

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> or confidentiality.

Just having them on a list would not compromise or remove anyone's
privacy or confidentiality.

> You're concerned that someone might not put their

  No not at all.  In fact I personally am not concerned at all, but
others 'Might" be concerned if information for vetting, ect., were
to require PII.  That was my point.  Sorry if I wasn't clear enough.

> 2. There is a list of those who are under consideration.

  Both fine and dandy!

> embarrassment of being nominated, and not selected to be among the

Your conclusion may indeed be correct here.  And I would have little
doubt that it is.  But does it need to be.  Why be embarrassed if your not
selected/elected for the Chair position of any WG or WG list?  Seems
to me too much ego is being considered here.

> enough"--regardless of the reality behind the scenes.

  You know, why not just have volunteers submit their names and
than have a random name selection script make the decision and be
done with it?

> background is (research/industry/provider/etc), and other factors.

Personally I could care little about what candidates background is,
as long as it is IT related and related to the subject area even if only
remotely.

> more embarrassing to everyone involved than I do any sort of list unhiding.

Agreed!  >:)  List unhiding or hiding is just silly and childish at best...
Sure your always going to have some member or another not liking
that Russ White or Jeff Williams ( very unlikely ) is on the list for whatever
reasons.  Such is life...

>
>
> :-)
>
> Russ
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32)
> Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
>
> iEYEARECAAYFAkmoDtYACgkQER27sUhU9OR+KACg3E0Lxda+Jmt5aiyYxCGOXWqq
> eqkAnjGeNSeBYZD4KFQpQPX6iNDLJV+1
> =UlV0
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Regards,

---

From: "Jeffrey A. Williams" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2009 14:23:22 -0800

Joel and all,

  Governments have trouble with maintaining confidentiality
because they are lazy or foolish.  Just that simple.

Regards,

---

From: "Jeffrey A. Williams" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2009 14:30:16 -0800

Leslie and all,

  Although I can sympathize and partly agree with your consideration
here. it is in the very "Feedback" and information desired/wanted or
perceived by some as needed where the slippery slope begins.

Regards,

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 28 Feb 2009 10:12:00 +1300

Hi Leslie,

> typical numbers were for actual feedbck on nominees, as a percentage.

Yes, that would be quite interesting. If the answer is anywhere
near 50% I'd say we are doing well, given the typical voting rates
in democracies where voting isn't compulsory.

> person" and "This person SUCKS!" -- which are equally uninformative

I think that "I don't know this person" is actually useful input if
it comes from a large percentage of respondents. The IETF is a social
structure, after all.

I agree that "This person SUCKS!" is useless, but I also believe that
a short comment (either positive or negative) is pretty useful as long
as it gives a reason ("This person is [not] a good candidate because
s/he is [un]willing to listen to other opinions."). In fact I pity the
NomCom if people write more than 2 or 3 sentences per candidate,
especially if we increase the number of comments by opening up
the list.

    Brian

---

From: "Joel M. Halpern" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2009 16:32:50 -0500

I can safely say that the response rate is nowhere near 50%.  While we 
would have been thrilled at the interest, the committee would have 
actually been seriously taxed to read that number of meaningful 
responses.  The real response rate was MUCH less than that.

The following is intended more as a summary of information that may be 
useful for some folks, and maybe should go somewhere.

In terms of substance, several observations.
While in theory "never heard of the guy" is useful, in practice it turns 
out to be unhelpful.
The most useful input was material of the form Person X has the 
following characteristics ... which I believe mean that person {is / is 
not / might be / might not be } a good fit for position X.  Often, such 
input include strong and weak points.
Getting input that says "This person is good / bad for simple reason X" 
Is still quite helpful.
Getting input that says "Person Z is great / a disaster for position Q" 
without any explanation of why is not particularly useful.  Either we 
know the problem, in which case the feedback does not help.  Or we 
don't, in which case the feedback leaves us puzzled.  (Yes, we can send 
back a "why?", which means this is not completely useless feedback.)

The other difficult to rank feedback we get is orderings of nominees. 
When coupled with detailed comments, this can serve as a nice summary of 
the comments.  By itself, it is basically unhelpful.  The exercise is 
not voting.  We are looking for information to help the committee.

Note that the difficulty of providing useful feedback is one of the 
reasons I would prefer not to have to use ringers, which is one of the 
topics of this discussion.

Yours, with apologies for the digression,
Joel

---

From: "Jeffrey A. Williams" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2009 16:43:57 -0800

Brian and all,

> it comes from a large percentage of respondents. The IETF is a social

  Social structure?  Gee, Ive been mistaken for year than.  I thought
the IETF was an Internet Engenerring Task Force, not a social
engenerring body.

> especially if we increase the number of comments by opening up

  Openness should be rule rather than the exception.

Regards,