Subject: Fwd: Nomcom 2010-11: Second Call for Community Feedback on Nominees

From: Mary Barnes <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 29 Oct 2010 10:08:32 -0500

Just in case you missed this on the IETF announcement list, if you
have not already provided feedback on this year's nominees, please do
so ASAP.

Folks on this list should be well prepared to provide comments that
will be very helpful for the nomcom in completing their deliberations,
in particular for the IESG slots.  Using the tool to enter the
feedback makes things easy for Nomcom, however, email is also welcome
and you can contact any nomcom member if you want to provide anonymous
feedback.

Regards,
Mary
Nomcom 2010-11 (past-chair) advisor

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: NomCom Chair <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, Oct 29, 2010 at 9:52 AM
Subject: Nomcom 2010-11: Second Call for Community Feedback on Nominees
To: IETF Announcement list <[email-masked]>

Nomcom 2010-2011 requests your input on the willing nominees for the
IETF open positions.

We request that as much as possible, comments are provided within two
weeks of this announcement posting.  Please provide comments as soon as
possible and no later than November 12th.  Comments received after the
Beijing meeting may receive less consideration, although we will make
every effort to consider any and all input.

The feedback form is available at the following URL:
 https://wiki.tools.ietf.org/group/nomcom/10/input/

Note, you must have an IETF tools login to respond to this invitation.
If you do not have one,
   http://www1.tools.ietf.org/newlogin
can be used to get one.

The web-based feedback tool gives the NomCom an automated process for
collecting input on the nominees.  Your input will be encrypted before
it is stored by the feedback tool, and can only be decrypted by the
NomCom.

When you access the feedback form, you will see a list of all of the
willing nominees.  By clicking on a nominee's name, you will be presented
with a text-input form into which you can type your input.

While we encourage feedback through the form, you may send feedback to
the nomcom list, [email-masked], directly.

Community feedback is essential for the nomcom process to be effective.
Notes on comparison of nominees to each other are also useful to the
nomcom. You are also encouraged to provide notes on how a nominee
satisfies the IESG/IAB/IAOC's desired expertise; if you feel that the
nominee has a different set of skills necessary for the job and those
skills are different from the posted requirements, please provide
details.

If you prefer to provide anonymous input, please send it directly to
the nomcom chair, Tom Walsh, or any other member of the nomcom and
request them to anonymize your input.  All information provided to the
nomcom and the sources of such information are confidential.
Thanks in advance for your feedback.

Regards,
Thomas Walsh
NomCom 2010-11 [email-masked]
[email-masked]

_______________________________________________
IETF-Announce mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-announce

---

From: "Vijay K. Gurbani" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 29 Oct 2010 10:32:36 -0500

On 10/29/2010 10:08 AM, Mary Barnes wrote:
> will be very helpful for the nomcom in completing their
> deliberations, in particular for the IESG slots.  Using the tool to
> enter the feedback makes things easy for Nomcom, however, email is
> also welcome and you can contact any nomcom member if you want to
> provide anonymous feedback.

It has always seemed incongruous to me that the lengthy profile
filled out by the nominees is not available to the people
asked to provide feedback on the nominees.  Essentially, we are
asked to provide comments for nominees without knowing what
their views on the critical aspects are.

For instance, I know some of the nominees and can vouch for
their capabilities, but there are many others who I have had
no contact with but they could be very well qualified for
the position they are nominated for.  However, those qualifications
are lost on me.

Is there a specific reason why the questionnaire or a capsule
summary of it is not shared with the folks asked to provide
comments?

Thanks,

- vijay
-- 
Vijay K. Gurbani, Bell Laboratories, Alcatel-Lucent
1960 Lucent Lane, Rm. 9C-533, Naperville, Illinois 60566 (USA)
Email: vkg@{alcatel-lucent.com,bell-labs.com,acm.org}
Web:   http://ect.bell-labs.com/who/vkg/

---

From: Andrew Sullivan <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 29 Oct 2010 11:36:08 -0400

> summary of it is not shared with the folks asked to provide

Alternatively, can nominees post their questionnaire responses
themselves?  They're supposed to be "confidential", so one is keen not
to violate that confidentiality.  But perhaps that's the wrong
understanding of it?

A

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
[email-masked]
Shinkuro, Inc.

---

From: "Vijay K. Gurbani" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 29 Oct 2010 10:49:48 -0500

> to violate that confidentiality.  But perhaps that's the wrong

I don't understand the "confidentiality" aspect.  The nominees are
applying for a position that comes with a lot of responsibility,
as such they put forward their best foot for a certain position
by deliberating on the lengthy questionnaire.

Why is it that the result of the deliberation is only available
to the NomCom members (clearly, the NomCom members have unrestricted
access to the confidential information)?

In other words, if confidentiality is only extended to the current
NomCom, then why bother soliciting input from the larger community?
If input is required from the larger community, then the data
to interpret that input in the correct context should also be
provided to the same community.  Otherwise, let the closed NomCom
members decide.

Thanks,

- vijay

---

From: Andrew Sullivan <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 29 Oct 2010 11:50:59 -0400

On Fri, Oct 29, 2010 at 10:49:48AM -0500, Vijay K. Gurbani wrote:

> I don't understand the "confidentiality" aspect. 

Well, that's a different discussion.  I was just trying to understand
what could be done now to address your issues.  Changing the nomcom
rules is a completely other layer: it's an IETF process discussion.
I'm tempted to suggest that it constitutes Layer 9 in a parallel
universe.

A

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
[email-masked]
Shinkuro, Inc.

---

From: Adam Roach <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 29 Oct 2010 10:58:11 -0500

On 10/29/10 10:50 AM, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
> rules is a completely other layer

I don't think he's asking for a change, just a clarification. What is 
the nature of the confidentiality supposed to be? Is it a promise from 
nomcom not to reveal the answers to anyone outside the nomcom committee? 
Is it a promise by the candidate not to share his answers outside the 
process?

The first one makes sense. It's harder to see the utility of the second.

Vijay's question was probing around whether the umbrella of 
"confidentiality" is constraining on the candidate.

Not a change, just clarity.

/a

---

From: "Joel M. Halpern" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 29 Oct 2010 12:23:46 -0400

There are several dimensions.

The nomcom process is a personall selection process.  As such, if it is 
going to succeed it is going to get private input.  In fact, since the 
input needs to be as clear and honest as possible, it has to be 
confidential.

one of the pieces of input is the questionnaire.  it is supposed to be a 
frank self-assessment by the nominee.  It has in the past inlcuded 
questions such as "what is the worst mistake you have made", and "what 
is the worst mistake you think body X has made."  As such, if we want 
honest answers we must extend confidentiality to those.  Remember, we 
very specifically designed this system to not be a popularity contest or 
election.  The point of community input is to provide additional 
information, not to be a collection of votes.

Important point here:  If you do not know the nominee, then don't 
provide input.  You are being asked for information you have that can 
help the process.  You are not being asked for your preference.  In 
fact, while one way of providing information is to rank teh nominees 
based on what you know, in my experience that is MUCH less useful to the 
nomcom than providing the informati9on you have about the people you know.

As for the idea of some folks making their questionnaire public, while 
that is not against the rules, it actually does have a down-side if you 
consider that for at least some people it will be important that the 
questionnaire be private.  The downside is that if a lot of nominees 
make their questionnaire public, then there will be pressure for 
everyone to do so.  Which is not a good idea.

For example, one of this years questions asks you to rank yourself 
compared with a number of other people.  Making the answer to that kind 
of question does not actually help the community provide useful 
information, but is likely in many cases to promote acrimony.

One can certainly imagine other processes.  But with the process we 
currently have, I would be very unhappy if it became either common or 
necessary for questionnaire responses to be made public.
I suppose the cynical response is that the nomcom has historically 
leaked enough taht you should treat it as if you are sending your 
response publicly anyway.  I prefer to treat the nomcom with respect, 
expect them to provide suitable confidentiality, and try to give them 
the information they need to do their job.

Yours,
Joel M. Halpern

---

From: Andrew Sullivan <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 29 Oct 2010 12:26:49 -0400

> Is it a promise by the candidate not to share his answers outside the  

It's certainly supposed to be a constraint on the nomcom.  The latter
is actually a question I've just asked the nomcom.  Full disclosure:
to my surprise (not to mention that of others, I'm sure), someone
thought me qualified to sit on the IAB, so I agreed to stand.  I have
been treating my response to the questionnaire as confidential because
of the way RFC 3777 is written.  But I'm not sure.  There's also the
fact that the IETF has traditionally disapproved of being seen to
campaign for a position, and it could be that posting one's responses
would be regarded as doing that.  (To be clear: this message is not a
solicitation of support!)

A
-- 
Andrew Sullivan
[email-masked]
Shinkuro, Inc.

---

From: "Vijay K. Gurbani" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 29 Oct 2010 18:06:09 -0500

On 10/29/2010 11:23 AM, Joel M. Halpern wrote:
> The nomcom process is a personall selection process. As such, if it
> is going to succeed it is going to get private input. In fact, since
> the input needs to be as clear and honest as possible, it has to be
> confidential. [...]

Joel: Thanks for clarifying.  So the choice of IESG/IAB/I* is
akin to how the Vatican chooses a pope.  A select
group of bishops (current NomCom) deliberates privately,
and while they may take in account views of the
laity, they will reach a private consensus based on
feedback from the nominees.  Then, a few days later smoke
is observed in the chimney and voila, a new pope (AD,
IAB member) emerges.

If that is the way the process is defined, then I am
willing to live with it.  Because we do forward the
NomCom feedback requests to our WG lists, I was merely
curious to see what instructions to give to my WG
members if they ever asked me the same question that
I posed to this august list.

Ciao,

- vijay

---

From: Marshall Eubanks <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 29 Oct 2010 19:27:31 -0400

> is observed in the chimney and voila, a new pope (AD,

I would disagree. The College of Cardinals (the Papal Nomcom) is
selected by the current and previous Popes. The IETF Nomcom is randomly 
selected from volunteers. The first group may be select, but the second isn't.

Regards
Marshall

---

From: "Joel M. Halpern" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 29 Oct 2010 19:31:32 -0400

Yes, that is a very reasonable analogy.

I might quibble about the one bit of phrasing where you imply that they 
only consider the feedback from the nominees (I believe nomcoms 
generally do consider other feedback), but I do not think that is 
important to your main point.

Yours,
Joel