-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Russ White wrote:
>> If everyone knew, there would be more lobbying since there would be more
>> people participating. I doubt the direct or secret-list lobbying would
>> wane much as a result.
>
> I don't think you'll get any more lobbying than you get now. The point
> of the nomcom being people, rather than a simple vote, is to filter out
> this sort of lobbying, because it's going to happen either way.
Having only the Nomcom decide amplifies lobbying, because the effort can
be concentrated on a small set of voters. A similar effect happened last
year in the US when the effect of a popular vote was insufficient to
select a Democratic party nominee. Rather than lobbying the general
public, effort was focused on "superdelagates" whose vote was not tied
to the general public. (yes, this is simplified, but I hope the point is
taken).
> The question is: Is the nomcom better at filtering out lobbying, or
> failures to get effective feedback because we're trying to keep
> something "secret?" After serving on the nomcom three times, I can
> easily say more feedback is better, and I'd rather work at weeding out
> lobbying--which I must do anyway--than to try and fix lack of feedback,
> or make "educated guesses."
Again, I agree that this is better for the Nomcom. The questions are:
1- is this better for the pool of applicants
or does being on a public list provide
a reason not to offer to serve?
2- is this better for the IETF as a whole
does the Nomcom actually come to a
better decision as a result?
I've shown specific impact to #1 above.
The Nomcom does NOT select the best person for each position. They
select the best person _available_, using a set criteria that at least
partly bias their decision to avoid controversy (what if *all* the
selected nominees were from Canada in one year?), as influenced by
whatever lobbying occurs to re-bias that decision.
Making the list public changes all these factors, but does not clearly
make the decision more reliable when considered as a whole.
Joe
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iEYEARECAAYFAkoyhxoACgkQE5f5cImnZrv/mQCg5m2yuarYx+28rf+Dc0+jy6Fd
rGEAoJhq7/L3mfk88ginyXZNQTSyd50T
=ufTe
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
