--On Saturday, March 09, 2013 10:31 -0500 Sam Hartman <hartmans-i...@mit.edu> wrote:
>>>>>> "John" == John C Klensin <john-i...@jck.com> writes: > John> confidential or not) or getting into public > discussions about John> qualifications for a position > while that position is under John> active consideration by > the Nomcom (not because the John> qualifications should be >... > John, I agree with what you say and what Jari said--both the > part you quoted and the rest of his note. However, I think > the part of your note above is a bit unclear. I realize you > and I have been having side discussions about this issue for a > few days now, but I suspect the IETf list may not be able to > follow what you wrote above, because I had significantly > difficulty the first time you explained it to me. > > When you engage in a discussion of qualifications while there > is an open position, you very quickly force others to either > abandon the discussion or to make comments that expose > information about how they feel about candidates. >... Sam, Yes, that is exactly correct. I didn't say more because I'm all-too-familiar with people not reading my longer notes and thought writing in a little less detail might be a good tradeoff. Thank you for the example -- at least IMO, it illustrates the problem very well and, as you say, it isn't hard to come up with others. >... > Similar examples are easy to find. > my conclusion is that you basically cannot discuss > requirements for an open position while it's open and get > meaningful results. > > I look forward to the discussion of future years. I hope that > who ever is moderating that discussion is very careful to > close down any attempts to bring it to a discussion of this > year or what this year's nomcom should do. In my opinion, > people who have opinions about that should contact the nomcom > and iab (nomco...@ietf.org and i...@ietf.org). For whatever it is worth, this is yet another part of the argument for Nomcom reports that are well-thought-out, careful about confidentiality, and that, ideally, pose questions and alternatives for the community to think about in public and defines a foundation for discussing them. thanks again, john
