Re: Complaining about ADs to Nomcom (Re: Voting (again))
Title: Converted from Rich Text John, One thing that Danny's questionaire didn't address was "How many additional folks might consider putting their names in the hat if they knew the candidates. In past years, when I have gotten a request from NOMCOM to review the padded list, I've thought to myself 'If I knew only these folks were running, I would have considered ...' I wonder if other people have thought the same. John L. _ Original message _ Subject: Re: Complaining about ADs to Nomcom (Re: Voting (again)) Author: "John C Klensin" [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: 16th May 2005 9:58:21 PM In the light of this and Dave's comments, and since I used to teach people how to design survey questions so that the questions were as non-reactive as possible and the answers could be interpreted. There is nothing inherently wrong with a self-report question. We ask them all the time and normally expect truthful answers. The tricky part is understanding which questions people may not want to answer truthfully, the reasons why, and, if the person who is reluctant to answer provides _some_ answer, how either that or a pattern of non-response is likely to bias the results. For example, if one asks a large sample of 10-year-olds how old they are, the answers will, predictably, be mostly truthful: there are few incentives to lie and mistakes will tend to be nearly randomly distributed (slightly fatter tail to the "younger" side because of forgetting birthdays). If one asks the same question of 60 year olds, the answer pattern would probably be different, and it is important, if one is trying to interpret validity, to understand those differences and their likely impact, rather than assuming either that all population groups are the same or that all self-report answers are invalid.Coming back to the question at hand, if the nomcom asks people whether they would have accepted nominations if their names would become public, why would someone lie? And, if they did, then which way would the report be biased. I would think that people who are inclined to give incorrect answers would be more inclined to answer "no problem" given the community's biases about openness and unwillingness to admit that they require secrecy. Maybe I'm wrong about that, but, if I'm not, the results Danny reported would, if anything, underestimate the number of people who would not be willing to be considered if their names were public.We now return you to the regularly-scheduled religious arguments on the subject.john --On Monday, May 16, 2005 10:52 +0200 Brian E Carpenter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You've seen Danny's message with the results of asking the question in a straightforward way - 20% of IESG nominees say they would not have volunteered. Unlike Dave, I am willing to believe them. fwiw I responded "Yes" to Danny's question, but not without careful thought and some hesitation. Brian Dave Crocker wrote: Seems fairly easy to judge the validity of that argument to me. ASk the nomcom to ask volunteers whether they would have volunteered if their name was gonig to be made public. Collect statistics. Sam, Sorry, no. As I posted earlier, that sort of methodology relies on what survey researchers call "self-report". It is very good for assessing attitudes and very bad for assessing actual behavior. For example, what you are likely to get are responses that indicate whether the people would like to have nominations be public. It does not guarantee -- and well might not even correlate with -- whether they really would run or not run, depending on the public-ness of the nomination. It is one thing to ask simple questions about simple issues. As soon as we get into something more "political" the psychodynamics get messy. d/ --- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking +1.408.246.8253 dcrocker a t ... WE'VE MOVED to: www.bbiw.net ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___Ietf mailing listIetf@ietf.orghttps://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Complaining about ADs to Nomcom (Re: Voting (again))
You've seen Danny's message with the results of asking the question in a straightforward way - 20% of IESG nominees say they would not have volunteered. Unlike Dave, I am willing to believe them. fwiw I responded Yes to Danny's question, but not without careful thought and some hesitation. Brian Dave Crocker wrote: Seems fairly easy to judge the validity of that argument to me. ASk the nomcom to ask volunteers whether they would have volunteered if their name was gonig to be made public. Collect statistics. Sam, Sorry, no. As I posted earlier, that sort of methodology relies on what survey researchers call self-report. It is very good for assessing attitudes and very bad for assessing actual behavior. For example, what you are likely to get are responses that indicate whether the people would like to have nominations be public. It does not guarantee -- and well might not even correlate with -- whether they really would run or not run, depending on the public-ness of the nomination. It is one thing to ask simple questions about simple issues. As soon as we get into something more political the psychodynamics get messy. d/ --- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking +1.408.246.8253 dcrocker a t ... WE'VE MOVED to: www.bbiw.net ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Complaining about ADs to Nomcom (Re: Voting (again))
You've seen Danny's message with the results of asking the question in a straightforward way - 20% of IESG nominees say they would not have volunteered. Unlike Dave, I am willing to believe them. Unfortunately Brian, this has nothing to do with my personal beliefs. It has to do with decades of hard-learned methodology realities, in the field of survey research. The convenience afforded by the concept of straight-forward does not exist in survey research. To the extent that you care to consider this issue as a matter of technical knowledge, rather than personal opinion, take a look at, for example, at http://www.sysurvey.com/tips/introduction_to_survey.htm. d/ --- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking +1.408.246.8253 dcrocker a t ... WE'VE MOVED to: www.bbiw.net ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Complaining about ADs to Nomcom (Re: Voting (again))
Playing a bit of catch-up on this thread... Alia Atlas [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: There is a difference between having participants who are interested in providing feedback ask for a copy of the list, with a promise of confidentiality, and give feedback - versus having that information publicly available. This sounds useful to me. I think this would be useful, though I'd add that the nomcom should have discretion to ignore such requests or only respond if they believe feedback from the requesting individual would actually be valueable. I wouldn't expect the nomcom to invoke such a privilege without good reason, but I'd feel better if they had the ability to vet requests to prevent denial of service and other abuses. And as later messages suggest, the above would be consistent with the current BCP, and I see nothing wrong with someone saying I know something about this area, and would like to provide input. If the nomcom is convinced this is the case, they can certainly provide a list of some sort. I'll also note that in the past, nomcoms used to send a list of names to a set of people and ask for feedback. But, it turned out that they didn't even get feedback from some of those people. Nowadays, folk are asked if they would provide feedback (and under confidentiality rules) and only after they respond are they sent a list. I think this is a better system and I suspect that it reduces the number of people who see a list, but then don't actually send feedback to the nomcom. Jari Arkko [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Like Hesham, I am also aware of this argument and do not necessarily agree with it. (In fact, one could make the point that not being able to tell you have volunteered sounds a bit wimpy compared to what kind of public visibility and pressures the folks need to deal with if they are actually selected, particularly to the IESG.) I see nothing wrong with telling folk that you have volunteered, if one is so inclined. What is not appropriate, however, is relaying to others information that can only have come out of the nomcom (e.g,. who you are commenting on, who you think the short list is, etc.) Brian E Carpenter [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: fwiw I responded Yes to Danny's question, but not without careful thought and some hesitation. Danny asked a very specific question: Would you have accepted nomination if the list of willing nominees was made public: YES or NO? Note that this question was about _this_ particular nomcom cycle, _this_ particular set of open slots, and _this_ particular situation an individual finds themself in, etc. I suspect that anyone who says they would answer yes to this question no matter what, has not actually thought through the awkward situations that can arise (or themselves been caught up within one). One common concern (and I've seen this in real life) goes something like: would you accept a nomination for IESG position X, where - the incumbent happens to be employed by the same employer as you, or - where the incumbent and you are colleages and _have_ to be able to work together after the nomcom results are out, regardless of the outcome? A good number of folk (that would make good potential ADs) simply say no, the current incumbent is doing a fine job and I won't run against them. If one believes that the nomcom should be trying hard to find the best people for the job (including possibly arm-twisting reluctant persons), the above should give pause when it comes to publishing candidate lists. Thomas ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Complaining about ADs to Nomcom (Re: Voting (again))
In the light of this and Dave's comments, and since I used to teach people how to design survey questions so that the questions were as non-reactive as possible and the answers could be interpreted. There is nothing inherently wrong with a self-report question. We ask them all the time and normally expect truthful answers. The tricky part is understanding which questions people may not want to answer truthfully, the reasons why, and, if the person who is reluctant to answer provides _some_ answer, how either that or a pattern of non-response is likely to bias the results. For example, if one asks a large sample of 10-year-olds how old they are, the answers will, predictably, be mostly truthful: there are few incentives to lie and mistakes will tend to be nearly randomly distributed (slightly fatter tail to the younger side because of forgetting birthdays). If one asks the same question of 60 year olds, the answer pattern would probably be different, and it is important, if one is trying to interpret validity, to understand those differences and their likely impact, rather than assuming either that all population groups are the same or that all self-report answers are invalid. Coming back to the question at hand, if the nomcom asks people whether they would have accepted nominations if their names would become public, why would someone lie? And, if they did, then which way would the report be biased. I would think that people who are inclined to give incorrect answers would be more inclined to answer no problem given the community's biases about openness and unwillingness to admit that they require secrecy. Maybe I'm wrong about that, but, if I'm not, the results Danny reported would, if anything, underestimate the number of people who would not be willing to be considered if their names were public. We now return you to the regularly-scheduled religious arguments on the subject. john --On Monday, May 16, 2005 10:52 +0200 Brian E Carpenter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You've seen Danny's message with the results of asking the question in a straightforward way - 20% of IESG nominees say they would not have volunteered. Unlike Dave, I am willing to believe them. fwiw I responded Yes to Danny's question, but not without careful thought and some hesitation. Brian Dave Crocker wrote: Seems fairly easy to judge the validity of that argument to me. ASk the nomcom to ask volunteers whether they would have volunteered if their name was gonig to be made public. Collect statistics. Sam, Sorry, no. As I posted earlier, that sort of methodology relies on what survey researchers call self-report. It is very good for assessing attitudes and very bad for assessing actual behavior. For example, what you are likely to get are responses that indicate whether the people would like to have nominations be public. It does not guarantee -- and well might not even correlate with -- whether they really would run or not run, depending on the public-ness of the nomination. It is one thing to ask simple questions about simple issues. As soon as we get into something more political the psychodynamics get messy. d/ --- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking +1.408.246.8253 dcrocker a t ... WE'VE MOVED to: www.bbiw.net ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Complaining about ADs to Nomcom (Re: Voting (again))
You've seen Danny's message with the results of asking the question in a straightforward way - 20% of IESG nominees say they would not have volunteered. It's not my intent to develop BCP text on ietf@ietf.org, but I do feel the need to say that we've had a previous suggestion that we could ask people if it's OK that their names be published and respect both yes and no answers. Could the 20 percent who wish to remain anonymous do so without the 80 percent also having to be anonymous to the community (modulo IESG and IAB members who are currently serving the community)? Spencer ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Complaining about ADs to Nomcom (Re: Voting (again))
Coming back to the question at hand, if the nomcom asks people whether they would have accepted nominations if their names would become public, why would someone lie? And, if they did, then which way would the report be biased. I would think that people who are inclined to give incorrect answers would be more inclined to answer no problem given the community's biases It is to a candidate's advantage to limit the amount of information provided to the nomcom, since the more obscure sources are more likely to have negative feedback about the candidate. In any event, this is less a question of lieing and more a question of preference. The question that was asked more than likely elicited a response to tell us if you strongly prefer to have nominations be kept secret. The interviewees had no cost in giving the answer. They are not held to their responses. Hence their answer is about preferences, not guarantees that they will not run. What is most fascinating about this sequence is the apparent belief that those participating in a political process do not try to game it. d/ d/ --- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking +1.408.246.8253 dcrocker a t ... WE'VE MOVED to: www.bbiw.net ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Complaining about ADs to Nomcom (Re: Voting (again))
Seems fairly easy to judge the validity of that argument to me. ASk the nomcom to ask volunteers whether they would have volunteered if their name was gonig to be made public. Collect statistics. Sam, Sorry, no. As I posted earlier, that sort of methodology relies on what survey researchers call self-report. It is very good for assessing attitudes and very bad for assessing actual behavior. For example, what you are likely to get are responses that indicate whether the people would like to have nominations be public. It does not guarantee -- and well might not even correlate with -- whether they really would run or not run, depending on the public-ness of the nomination. It is one thing to ask simple questions about simple issues. As soon as we get into something more political the psychodynamics get messy. d/ --- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking +1.408.246.8253 dcrocker a t ... WE'VE MOVED to: www.bbiw.net ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Complaining about ADs to Nomcom (Re: Voting (again))
Hi, Sam, Spencer == Spencer Dawkins [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Spencer My point is that I *have* seen a complete list of Spencer nominations, including a couple of ringers, for specific Spencer AD positions, and I *have* seen a complete list of Spencer nominations for IAB positions. No you have not seen a complete list of nominations. You've seen the people nomcom is considering seriously. I stand corrected! I've volunteered for Nomcom several times, but have never had the stock prices align the right way to select me, and so mispoke. If I understand correctly, what I have seen is a more complete list than the community has seen, plus ringers, minus myself if I was nominated for the position, for specific positions on IESG and IAB. I'd still like other people to see whatever list I was seeing - that was what I was trying to say. Thanks for the process clue, Spencer ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Complaining about ADs to Nomcom (Re: Voting (again))
Brian == Brian E Carpenter [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Brian Please understand the argument that was made strongly while Brian RFC 3777 was in WG discussion: there is reason to believe Brian that a substantial fraction of the potential candidates Brian would *not* volunteer if they were entering a public Brian race. It's hard to judge the validity of that argument, but Brian it's certain that publishing the names would change the Brian whole process in unpredictable ways. Seems fairly easy to judge the validity of that argument to me. ASk the nomcom to ask volunteers whether they would have volunteered if their name was gonig to be made public. Collect statistics. --Sam ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Complaining about ADs to Nomcom (Re: Voting (again))
Hesham, Soliman, Hesham wrote: ... Even assuming that publishing candidate lists would result in better-quality feedback and permit the Nomcom to make better choices among plausibly-appropriate candidates, please look at the other side. There are people in the community who, for whatever reassons, find the prospect of a volunteer, have that public, and then not be selected process sufficiently painful to prevent them from volunteering... = With all due respect to those people, I think it's a shame they feel like that. It seems like the selection decision is perceived as a personal judgement by those people. Good people may not get selected for a million reasons. I hate making blanket judgements but this kind of attitude is probably not a healthy attitude for an AD-to-be. But there is another issue. When someone asks their employer for agreement to be a candidate, the employer may worry about the PR impact. Imagine: Flarion employee passed over for prestigious IETF job; major competitor chosen instead So the candidate's personal attitude may not come into it at all. Brian ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: Complaining about ADs to Nomcom (Re: Voting (again))
= I would challenge this assumption. From what I've seen (I saw the list of some of the nominees lately) I don't think we have it is not an assumption. it is an explanation that the nomcom gives, with some regularity. d/ --- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking +1.408.246.8253 dcrocker a t ... WE'VE MOVED to: www.bbiw.net ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: Complaining about ADs to Nomcom (Re: Voting (again))
= With all due respect to those people, I think it's a shame they feel like that. It seems like the selection decision is perceived as a personal judgement by those people. Good people may not get selected for a million reasons. I hate making blanket judgements but this kind of attitude is probably not a healthy attitude for an AD-to-be. But there is another issue. When someone asks their employer for agreement to be a candidate, the employer may worry about the PR impact. Imagine: Flarion employee passed over for prestigious IETF job; major competitor chosen instead So the candidate's personal attitude may not come into it at all. = I thought we were all participating as people not on behalf of our companies :) You're right of course, some companies can be embarrased by this. Not that it will result in a drop in share price (we're far from being that important). There is a worse outcome too, a company might react to the above incident by trying to influence (one way or another) to get its employee in this position next time. So there is some cultural improvements that will need to go with our process. And just as importantly, we'll need objective behaviour from all parties involved. But in the absence of all that, no process will be useful IMO. The difference is, in one case (today) it's a secret, and in the other it's out in the open. Hesham Brian === This email may contain confidential and privileged material for the sole use of the intended recipient. Any review or distribution by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient please contact the sender and delete all copies. === ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Complaining about ADs to Nomcom (Re: Voting (again))
But there is another issue. When someone asks their employer for agreement to be a candidate, the employer may worry about the PR impact. Imagine: Well, that is certainly a serious problem for all of the other professional organizations that have public nominees lists, isn't it? d/ --- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking +1.408.246.8253 dcrocker a t ... WE'VE MOVED to: www.bbiw.net ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Complaining about ADs to Nomcom (Re: Voting (again))
On May 9, 2005, at 8:09 AM, Brian E Carpenter wrote: I'm going to ask this year's Nomcom chair to see if this year's candidates can answer the question would you have run if your name had been made public? Brian Brian et al., Here are some data points for folks to consider. Thanks to all those (a surprisingly large amount in two days!) that replied to my query. - Question asked to all 2004/05 IESG IAB willing nominees: Would you have accepted nomination if the list of willing nominees was made public: YES or NO? Response results: --- IESG Nominees: Total Responses: 83% of IESG Nominees YES: 79.4% NO: 20.6% --- IAB Nominees: Total Responses: 86.3% of IAB Nominees YES: 86.4% NO: 13.6% - I didn't include any additional comments several folks expressed, as many of them have already been discussed here. I'm certain that if I posed slightly different variations of this question (for example, What if the list were padded w/ringers? or the like) responses would have been different. One interesting (and perhaps rather intuitive) observation that's not entirely obvious from the numbers above is that several folks were OK with their names being listed as willing nominees for only a subset of the positions which they'd been nominated (e.g., OK with IAB nomination being public, but not IETF chair or IESG nomination being public). Given the time I've spent with the NomCom over the last year as chair, (and my previous voting member term a couple years ago), I can say for sure that making the lists public would certainly be interesting and useful from the perspective of collecting feedback on nominees from the community. However, I also understand why many folks are opposed to making the list of willing nominees public. -danny ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: Complaining about ADs to Nomcom (Re: Voting (again))
I think that what is needed here is transparency, the problem is not the outcome, it's the way the outcome is arrived at. I think that it is equally important to have the same level of transparency when WG chairs are appointed. The WG should be told when a vacancy is coming up and there should be an open call for volunteers. I don't think that we would end up with different chairs but people would feel a lot more involved than they do at present when a chair suddenly gets parachuted in without the group even knowing that a vacancy existed. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Danny McPherson Sent: Wednesday, May 11, 2005 3:31 PM To: ietf@ietf.org Subject: Re: Complaining about ADs to Nomcom (Re: Voting (again)) On May 9, 2005, at 8:09 AM, Brian E Carpenter wrote: I'm going to ask this year's Nomcom chair to see if this year's candidates can answer the question would you have run if your name had been made public? Brian Brian et al., Here are some data points for folks to consider. Thanks to all those (a surprisingly large amount in two days!) that replied to my query. - Question asked to all 2004/05 IESG IAB willing nominees: Would you have accepted nomination if the list of willing nominees was made public: YES or NO? Response results: --- IESG Nominees: Total Responses: 83% of IESG Nominees YES: 79.4% NO: 20.6% --- IAB Nominees: Total Responses: 86.3% of IAB Nominees YES: 86.4% NO: 13.6% - I didn't include any additional comments several folks expressed, as many of them have already been discussed here. I'm certain that if I posed slightly different variations of this question (for example, What if the list were padded w/ringers? or the like) responses would have been different. One interesting (and perhaps rather intuitive) observation that's not entirely obvious from the numbers above is that several folks were OK with their names being listed as willing nominees for only a subset of the positions which they'd been nominated (e.g., OK with IAB nomination being public, but not IETF chair or IESG nomination being public). Given the time I've spent with the NomCom over the last year as chair, (and my previous voting member term a couple years ago), I can say for sure that making the lists public would certainly be interesting and useful from the perspective of collecting feedback on nominees from the community. However, I also understand why many folks are opposed to making the list of willing nominees public. -danny ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Complaining about ADs to Nomcom (Re: Voting (again))
This is a good suggestion in the sense that as far as I can see, it would fall within the current BCP rules, and could be implemented easily soon. Then we could take a bit more time to update the BCP in parallel, while perhaps also getting some early experiences on how well the new model works. --Jari How about when someone tosses their hat in the nomcom ring, they indicate if their name can be made public. Nomcom publishes a list of these names a note about the number of candidates who are anonymous. The genereal IETF than has a somewhat better idea of who to provide comments on candidates can remain anonymous. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Complaining about ADs to Nomcom (Re: Voting (again))
Brian E Carpenter wrote: As Leslie noted (...) another tricky point is exactly when the list is published and how nominations after that date are handled. Agreed. If you make the publication at the end of the nominations period then its not useful as a tool for other potential candidates to decide if they want (or need!) to run for the position. But it seems complicated to publish the list several times. And if we are open about the list of candidates, we can't have nominations coming in after the last publication of the list. Its a tricky decision, but if it were up to me I'd probably just publish it once, at the end of the nominations period. --Jari ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Complaining about ADs to Nomcom (Re: Voting (again))
Jari Arkko wrote: Brian E Carpenter wrote: As Leslie noted (...) another tricky point is exactly when the list is published and how nominations after that date are handled. Agreed. If you make the publication at the end of the nominations period then its not useful as a tool for other potential candidates to decide if they want (or need!) to run for the position. But it seems complicated to publish the list several times. And if we are open about the list of candidates, we can't have nominations coming in after the last publication of the list. Its a tricky decision, but if it were up to me I'd probably just publish it once, at the end of the nominations period. Actually, I think there is a slightly better way, somehow analagous to the 'petition period' used by the ISOC NomCom process. On day N, publish the list of willing nominees so far and invite further nominations before day N+14. On day N+28, publish the final list of willing nominees and invite feedback. This would, if we wanted to publish the names, give 2 weeks for extra nominations and another 2 weeks to check their willingness to serve. Brian ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Complaining about ADs to Nomcom (Re: Voting (again))
On day N, publish the list of willing nominees so far and invite further nominations before day N+14. On day N+28, publish the final list of willing nominees and invite feedback. This would, if we wanted to publish the names, give 2 weeks for extra nominations and another 2 weeks to check their willingness to serve. seems pretty reasonable. d/ --- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking +1.408.246.8253 dcrocker a t ... WE'VE MOVED to: www.bbiw.net ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Complaining about ADs to Nomcom (Re: Voting (again))
Seems resonable to of as well. The good thing about mobile email is that t9 forces you to be brief. --- original message --- Subject:Re: Complaining about ADs to Nomcom (Re: Voting (again)) Sender: Dave Crocker [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: 05/10/2005 5:27 pm On day N, publish the list of willing nominees so far and invite further nominations before day N+14. On day N+28, publish the final list of willing nominees and invite feedback. This would, if we wanted to publish the names, give 2 weeks for extra nominations and another 2 weeks to check their willingness to serve. seems pretty reasonable. d/ --- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking +1.408.246.8253 dcrocker a t ... WE'VE MOVED to: www.bbiw.net ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Complaining about ADs to Nomcom (Re: Voting (again))
Brian E Carpenter wrote: Actually, I think there is a slightly better way, somehow analagous to the 'petition period' used by the ISOC NomCom process. On day N, publish the list of willing nominees so far and invite further nominations before day N+14. On day N+28, publish the final list of willing nominees and invite feedback. This would, if we wanted to publish the names, give 2 weeks for extra nominations and another 2 weeks to check their willingness to serve. Ok. --Jari ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Complaining about ADs to Nomcom (Re: Voting (again))
Brian, This works for me, too. FWIW. Actually, I think there is a slightly better way, somehow analagous to the 'petition period' used by the ISOC NomCom process. On day N, publish the list of willing nominees so far and invite further nominations before day N+14. On day N+28, publish the final list of willing nominees and invite feedback. This would, if we wanted to publish the names, give 2 weeks for extra nominations and another 2 weeks to check their willingness to serve. Brian ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: Complaining about ADs to Nomcom (Re: Voting (again))
Sorry for late response. Let me follow this up a bit. I've been encouraging people to try to sort through reasons and things that would make it different on another thread, but I think we have a choice of potential candidates problem today. The IESG and IAB received very few real choices reports from several nomcoms while I was serving there. Possibly things have gotten better, but I have my doubts. = I would challenge this assumption. From what I've seen (I saw the list of some of the nominees lately) I don't think we have a shortage. Of course shortage of quality is a matter of personal opinion. But the numbers are there I think. Whatever the reasons, we don't seem to have enough plausible candidates to provide reasonable turnover on the IESG (which, personally, I think would be healthy). = I agree with the turnover point. Even assuming that publishing candidate lists would result in better-quality feedback and permit the Nomcom to make better choices among plausibly-appropriate candidates, please look at the other side. There are people in the community who, for whatever reassons, find the prospect of a volunteer, have that public, and then not be selected process sufficiently painful to prevent them from volunteering... = With all due respect to those people, I think it's a shame they feel like that. It seems like the selection decision is perceived as a personal judgement by those people. Good people may not get selected for a million reasons. I hate making blanket judgements but this kind of attitude is probably not a healthy attitude for an AD-to-be. or certainly from volunteering more than once or twice. There are also subtle differences in how one can volunteer that can be expressed in confidence to the Nomcom: I don't really want to do this, but will serve if you conclude that it is important and I'm the best choice or I can't work with X and would accept the position only if X were not selected are comments that can be made today, but which don't show up on public lists. I believe that many of the people who would semi-volunteer with such conditions would decline to volunteer at all if their names would go on an undifferentiated public list. = Hmm. I guess the choice we need to make is whether we should design the process to please some of the potential nominees or to advance the community through openness and wide and diverse feedback. The way we have it now, key people are seen as the people that the nomcom should use to make their decisions. How key people only can be trusted to make this decision is beyond me. In essense, we're assuming that good technical people are good managers and good judges of personalities and personal skills of nominees. This is a dangerous assumption IMO and doesn't take into account that people have diverse skills. Effectively, the process assumes that there are good people (good at everything) and average people (average at everything). And of course good people can also recommend that the nomcom considers other good people's opinions about nominees. Can you see where this is going? It can work for a small community but I doubt it would for a community this size. BTW, I'm not someone who was harmed by this process, on the contrary. but I still don't trust it. Hesham So, those of you who strongly advocate a public list... What percentage of the already-too-small potential candidate pool are you willing to lose? Are you convinced that anyone with sensitivities or conditions similar to those outlined above would make a bad AD if selected? Do you think the tradeoffs are worth it? john === This email may contain confidential and privileged material for the sole use of the intended recipient. Any review or distribution by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient please contact the sender and delete all copies. === ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Complaining about ADs to Nomcom (Re: Voting (again))
Soliman, Hesham wrote: At 01:10 PM 5/4/2005, Soliman, Hesham wrote: One way to open up the process would be to allow any participant to personally request a list of candidates from Nomcom, against a personal non-disclosure promise. (Not my idea; this was suggested during last week's IESG retreat.) = If we do that we may as well put the list on the web. How do we define participant? There is a difference between having participants who are interested in providing feedback ask for a copy of the list, with a promise of confidentiality, and give feedback - versus having that information publicly available. This sounds useful to me. I don't think that participant really needs to be defined. Those who will be interested are those who are involved. Currently, to obtain input from a more diverse set of people, Nomcomm has to guess who is appropriate to ask hope that a reasonable sampling of them will be willing/interested in responding. = Ok, since I think it will lead to the same effect (widely known nominees) I'm fine with that suggestion. Personally, I don't see the difference between doing what you describe above and sending the list of nominees to this mailing list. But either option is definitely better than what we have today IMHO. One difference is that we wouldn't have to update the BCP, since there would be no overt breach of confidentiality. So next year's NomCom could simply do this without further bureaucracy. I'm going to ask this year's Nomcom chair to see if this year's candidates can answer the question would you have run if your name had been made public? Brian ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Complaining about ADs to Nomcom (Re: Voting (again))
Actually, I'm not sure I agree (that it's a good plan, or better to do it this way than update the BCP). When the NomCom WG was discussing this as part of creating RFC3777, I was initially a proponent of the publish the candidate list! perspective. I will admit to having been swayed by the arguments that it increases the likelihood of scaring off potential candidates, requires the freezing the candidate list, exposes the nomcom to second guessing, and inevitably provokes electioneering. Further, I also wonder what happens *after* the NomCom selections are done. I.e., how many people will not have complaints taken seriously because they're just mad they were not selected. So, 1/ I'm not sure it's better to have a website that interested people can subscribe to at the cost of agreeing to maintain confidentiality than what we have today or going to a full open model. It has the chance of significantly increasing the whisper group, and doesn't really solve any of the negatives listed above. 2/ If we want to change the model, we should update the BCP, and take the time to consciously re-evaluate the upsides and downsides we know to exist with closed or open candidate lists. If we (the IETF community) genuinely want more openness, we should do that, and get on with dealing with the negative sides we know will exist. Let's not just go halfway and get the worst of both models. Leslie. Brian E Carpenter wrote: Soliman, Hesham wrote: At 01:10 PM 5/4/2005, Soliman, Hesham wrote: One way to open up the process would be to allow any participant to personally request a list of candidates from Nomcom, against a personal non-disclosure promise. (Not my idea; this was suggested during last week's IESG retreat.) = If we do that we may as well put the list on the web. How do we define participant? There is a difference between having participants who are interested in providing feedback ask for a copy of the list, with a promise of confidentiality, and give feedback - versus having that information publicly available. This sounds useful to me. I don't think that participant really needs to be defined. Those who will be interested are those who are involved. Currently, to obtain input from a more diverse set of people, Nomcomm has to guess who is appropriate to ask hope that a reasonable sampling of them will be willing/interested in responding. = Ok, since I think it will lead to the same effect (widely known nominees) I'm fine with that suggestion. Personally, I don't see the difference between doing what you describe above and sending the list of nominees to this mailing list. But either option is definitely better than what we have today IMHO. One difference is that we wouldn't have to update the BCP, since there would be no overt breach of confidentiality. So next year's NomCom could simply do this without further bureaucracy. I'm going to ask this year's Nomcom chair to see if this year's candidates can answer the question would you have run if your name had been made public? Brian ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Complaining about ADs to Nomcom (Re: Voting (again))
I'm actually not particularly convinced that publicizing the list of names would narrow the candidate pool particularly, but it does seem to me that by making electioneering a more pressing piece of the process (there's electioneering now, but it's not significant) and moving the process closer to voting by having done so, there would be a fundamental shift in the ethos of the organization. Not that that's necessarily a bad thing, but I do think it's a decision that should be made deliberately rather than having it accidentally fall out of the solution to some other problem. Melinda ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Complaining about ADs to Nomcom (Re: Voting (again))
I don't understand why making names public would increase electioneering over what we already have. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Complaining about ADs to Nomcom (Re: Voting (again))
On May 9, 2005, at 1:42 PM, Scott W Brim wrote: I don't understand why making names public would increase electioneering over what we already have. Electioneering is perhaps the wrong word, since it implies behavior on the part of the candidates. What I'm thinking about is pressure from interested parties. Right now, for example, the process does a pretty good job of protecting itself from situations in which a company decides that it really needs to have someone on the IESG, or ones in which a bunch of people want to push a particular technology through and need to get IESG support. Melinda ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Complaining about ADs to Nomcom (Re: Voting (again))
Ah, but the candidates know who they are, and can arrange their own positive input. If the list were open, might the nomcom receive more and better balanced input? - Ralph On Mon, 2005-05-09 at 13:49 -0400, Melinda Shore wrote: On May 9, 2005, at 1:42 PM, Scott W Brim wrote: I don't understand why making names public would increase electioneering over what we already have. Electioneering is perhaps the wrong word, since it implies behavior on the part of the candidates. What I'm thinking about is pressure from interested parties. Right now, for example, the process does a pretty good job of protecting itself from situations in which a company decides that it really needs to have someone on the IESG, or ones in which a bunch of people want to push a particular technology through and need to get IESG support. Melinda ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Complaining about ADs to Nomcom (Re: Voting (again))
Hi all, Is it true true that we suffer from a lack of IESG candidates? I've often heard this claim, but I've been asked by the NOMCOM to comment on list for the part few years it seemed that there were capable names on the lists (unless they were all ringers). John The good thing about mobile email is that t9 forces you to be brief. --- original message --- Subject:Re: Complaining about ADs to Nomcom (Re: Voting (again)) Sender: Margaret Wasserman [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: 05/07/2005 5:43 pm Hi John, At 9:18 AM -0400 5/7/05, John C Klensin wrote: Whatever the reasons, we don't seem to have enough plausible candidates to provide reasonable turnover on the IESG (which, personally, I think would be healthy). What is reasonable turnover for the IESG? I haven't been on a nomcom, but (from the outside) most of them seem to start with the assumption that they should not change more than 3 IESG members at a time. If that is considered prudent, then we are talking about a situation where a maximum of 1/4 of the IESG will be intentionally replaced each cycle. Factoring in mid-term resignations and the possibility that the nomcom may occasionally make a poor choice requiring quicker turnover, successful ADs who are willing to continue serving will probably be in-office for an average of 8-10 years (4-5 terms). This seems to match existing practice. What level of turnover do you think would be healthy? And what would be the impacts of having more new ADs each year? Margaret ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Complaining about ADs to Nomcom (Re: Voting (again))
How about when someone tosses their hat in the nomcom ring, they indicate if their name can be made public. Nomcom publishes a list of these names a note about the number of candidates who are anonymous. The genereal IETF than has a somewhat better idea of who to provide comments on candidates can remain anonymous. John The good thing about mobile email is that t9 forces you to be brief. --- original message --- Subject:Re: Complaining about ADs to Nomcom (Re: Voting (again)) Sender: Brian E Carpenter [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: 05/09/2005 4:09 pm Soliman, Hesham wrote: At 01:10 PM 5/4/2005, Soliman, Hesham wrote: One way to open up the process would be to allow any participant to personally request a list of candidates from Nomcom, against a personal non-disclosure promise. (Not my idea; this was suggested during last week's IESG retreat.) = If we do that we may as well put the list on the web. How do we define participant? There is a difference between having participants who are interested in providing feedback ask for a copy of the list, with a promise of confidentiality, and give feedback - versus having that information publicly available. This sounds useful to me. I don't think that participant really needs to be defined. Those who will be interested are those who are involved. Currently, to obtain input from a more diverse set of people, Nomcomm has to guess who is appropriate to ask hope that a reasonable sampling of them will be willing/interested in responding. = Ok, since I think it will lead to the same effect (widely known nominees) I'm fine with that suggestion. Personally, I don't see the difference between doing what you describe above and sending the list of nominees to this mailing list. But either option is definitely better than what we have today IMHO. One difference is that we wouldn't have to update the BCP, since there would be no overt breach of confidentiality. So next year's NomCom could simply do this without further bureaucracy. I'm going to ask this year's Nomcom chair to see if this year's candidates can answer the question would you have run if your name had been made public? Brian ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Polling for feedback (Re: Complaining about ADs to Nomcom (Re: Voting (again)))
Hi Lakshminath, Good point. Its possible that you would get (some) more input with the new system. My guess is though that you'd still need to poll specific groups to get the input, because people are typically not very eager to do things unless you remind them. But its likely that if you get very extreme candidates (particularly bad ones), you might get a lot of input on that particular person. The main result, I think, would be that you would get more balanced input, and from a wider set of people. Anyway, your description below tells another story as well. We've been basically asking in this thread whether confidentiality is important or not. Its important to realize that there is no nomcom only confidentiality. What we have is a situation where not only the nomcom, but a fairly large group of people in the area know, and a many insiders (e.g., people who know a lot of potential candidates) know. We might wonder how useful this confidentiality is for the candidates who, for some reason, wish to have confidentiality. Many key people that you'd be working with know that you were running. Please note that I'm not critizing your input collection system. You definately need the input! But in reality, the confidentiality may not be quite as tight as one might believe. Plus I at least prefer the IETF to operate in an open, transparent manner. And I want to all the participants to have the same capability to provide input. Of course, its still the nomcom that is in charge of the selections -- this leaves you still the possibility to decide for yourselves, favor input from someone (e.g. outgoing AD) more than Joe Random Neverbeentoietf. So I'd say we don't have a problem with electioneering, nor does this proposal turn the IETF to a voting organization. --Jari In the current Nomcom, a few of us compiled lists of all WG contributors (chairs, advisers, current I-D editors and authors) within each area; and our Nomcom chair used a script to randomly select a subset from those lists, and then used a 2-step process to seek feedback. The first was to ask each potential feedback provider whether he/she would agree to keep the list of candidates confidential, and the second to ask for feedback, with the option of providing it anonymously. Sure the above process could be tweaked, but as it is does not result in Nomcoms going only to IETF management people for feedback. Does it possibly exclude folks who are enthusiastic about providing feedback? Yes, but I think overall, it is quite fair. I do think sending the candidate lists to ietf@ietf.org for feedback has the downside potential of everyone commenting on a few of the candidates or lists (i.e., areas). That, if/when happens, is practically useless for 2 reasons: Nomcom doesn't get feedback on all lists, and a huge amount of feedback might be impossible to parse and compile for humans :-). ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Complaining about ADs to Nomcom (Re: Voting (again))
I tend to agree with Leslie that it would be better to update the BCP. (I can volunteer to edit an update, if there are no other takers.) But I believe the update should simply allow the nomcom to publish this information. As has been stated before, a lot of this information is already around us, so many of the potential downsides would already be a problem, if they really would be problems. And given that we still prefer the nomcom to be in charge, I do not think that we will have a significant issue with electioneering. I hope that the nomcom does more than counts positive and negative inputs! --Jari Leslie Daigle wrote: Actually, I'm not sure I agree (that it's a good plan, or better to do it this way than update the BCP). When the NomCom WG was discussing this as part of creating RFC3777, I was initially a proponent of the publish the candidate list! perspective. I will admit to having been swayed by the arguments that it increases the likelihood of scaring off potential candidates, requires the freezing the candidate list, exposes the nomcom to second guessing, and inevitably provokes electioneering. Further, I also wonder what happens *after* the NomCom selections are done. I.e., how many people will not have complaints taken seriously because they're just mad they were not selected. So, 1/ I'm not sure it's better to have a website that interested people can subscribe to at the cost of agreeing to maintain confidentiality than what we have today or going to a full open model. It has the chance of significantly increasing the whisper group, and doesn't really solve any of the negatives listed above. 2/ If we want to change the model, we should update the BCP, and take the time to consciously re-evaluate the upsides and downsides we know to exist with closed or open candidate lists. If we (the IETF community) genuinely want more openness, we should do that, and get on with dealing with the negative sides we know will exist. Let's not just go halfway and get the worst of both models. Leslie. Brian E Carpenter wrote: Soliman, Hesham wrote: At 01:10 PM 5/4/2005, Soliman, Hesham wrote: One way to open up the process would be to allow any participant to personally request a list of candidates from Nomcom, against a personal non-disclosure promise. (Not my idea; this was suggested during last week's IESG retreat.) = If we do that we may as well put the list on the web. How do we define participant? There is a difference between having participants who are interested in providing feedback ask for a copy of the list, with a promise of confidentiality, and give feedback - versus having that information publicly available. This sounds useful to me. I don't think that participant really needs to be defined. Those who will be interested are those who are involved. Currently, to obtain input from a more diverse set of people, Nomcomm has to guess who is appropriate to ask hope that a reasonable sampling of them will be willing/interested in responding. = Ok, since I think it will lead to the same effect (widely known nominees) I'm fine with that suggestion. Personally, I don't see the difference between doing what you describe above and sending the list of nominees to this mailing list. But either option is definitely better than what we have today IMHO. One difference is that we wouldn't have to update the BCP, since there would be no overt breach of confidentiality. So next year's NomCom could simply do this without further bureaucracy. I'm going to ask this year's Nomcom chair to see if this year's candidates can answer the question would you have run if your name had been made public? Brian ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Complaining about ADs to Nomcom (Re: Voting (again))
Hi John, So, those of you who strongly advocate a public list... What percentage of the already-too-small potential candidate pool are you willing to lose? Are you convinced that anyone with sensitivities or conditions similar to those outlined above would make a bad AD if selected? Do you think the tradeoffs are worth it? There are possible tradeoffs in this decision. But let me turn the questions around for you: What percentage of the candidate pool are you willing to lose because other potential candidates don't realize that the set of realistic alternatives is small? Do you want to risk selecting someone that the nomcom didn't realize had issues but the IETF at large knew about it? Are you sure that you want to exclude input from the whole IETF? What image do we want to project from our process to the participants? Are you convinced that shyness from public eye isn't being used to guide the process by a set of insiders? Do you have any hard data about sensitivities, anything to back up the default (to me) assumption of being open? And if there is hard data, can you show that it is not an issue already, in the partial publicity of list-receivers and friends of candidates etc? --Jari ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Complaining about ADs to Nomcom (Re: Voting (again))
And there is some risk (small, I think) of people pushing others to endorse them. This would seem easier with a public list, because the nomcom is not left wondering why they got the supportive email. A risk not without quite extensive precedent over the years, and the concept of overt electioneering is one that personally I find a strange perversion of an already somewhat strange process. Are we after the the judgement of a few as to the best qualified individual for the role, or the one who is seen as being the most popular on the basis of a concerted campaign of electioneering? What is this body again? What is its purpose? Why does it exist? etc. Geoff ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Complaining about ADs to Nomcom (Re: Voting (again))
I agree that electioneering is extremely undesirable. And it does currently agree to some degree. The question is whether publishing the list would actually cause a significant increase in that behavior. If we conclude that publishing would indeed result in such an increase, then that is a good reason to not publish the list of candidates. But given that electioneering already goes on, and that the feedback the nomcom receives is somewhat affected by the question of who can manage to discern the candidates from the leaky information flow, I am doubtful as to whether it would result in a significant increase. Yours, Joel M. Halpern At 01:33 PM 5/8/2005, Geoff Huston wrote: And there is some risk (small, I think) of people pushing others to endorse them. This would seem easier with a public list, because the nomcom is not left wondering why they got the supportive email. A risk not without quite extensive precedent over the years, and the concept of overt electioneering is one that personally I find a strange perversion of an already somewhat strange process. Are we after the the judgement of a few as to the best qualified individual for the role, or the one who is seen as being the most popular on the basis of a concerted campaign of electioneering? What is this body again? What is its purpose? Why does it exist? etc. Geoff ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Complaining about ADs to Nomcom (Re: Voting (again))
--On Wednesday, 04 May, 2005 17:04 +0200 Brian E Carpenter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Please understand the argument that was made strongly while RFC 3777 was in WG discussion: there is reason to believe that a substantial fraction of the potential candidates would *not* volunteer if they were entering a public race. It's hard to judge the validity of that argument, but it's certain that publishing the names would change the whole process in unpredictable ways. ... Let me follow this up a bit. I've been encouraging people to try to sort through reasons and things that would make it different on another thread, but I think we have a choice of potential candidates problem today. The IESG and IAB received very few real choices reports from several nomcoms while I was serving there. Possibly things have gotten better, but I have my doubts. Whatever the reasons, we don't seem to have enough plausible candidates to provide reasonable turnover on the IESG (which, personally, I think would be healthy). Even assuming that publishing candidate lists would result in better-quality feedback and permit the Nomcom to make better choices among plausibly-appropriate candidates, please look at the other side. There are people in the community who, for whatever reassons, find the prospect of a volunteer, have that public, and then not be selected process sufficiently painful to prevent them from volunteering... or certainly from volunteering more than once or twice. There are also subtle differences in how one can volunteer that can be expressed in confidence to the Nomcom: I don't really want to do this, but will serve if you conclude that it is important and I'm the best choice or I can't work with X and would accept the position only if X were not selected are comments that can be made today, but which don't show up on public lists. I believe that many of the people who would semi-volunteer with such conditions would decline to volunteer at all if their names would go on an undifferentiated public list. So, those of you who strongly advocate a public list... What percentage of the already-too-small potential candidate pool are you willing to lose? Are you convinced that anyone with sensitivities or conditions similar to those outlined above would make a bad AD if selected? Do you think the tradeoffs are worth it? john ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Complaining about ADs to Nomcom (Re: Voting (again))
You raise two questions about making the candidate list public. You raise the question of whether we can afford the loss of candidates from those people not willing to be seen as losing. I will admit to not being sure I understand the driver for people who both have that concern and could do the job of AD. (I can see it for IAB membership.) I can't swear that we won't lose one or two vialbe candidates, but I tend to doubt it. You also ask about the nuances. The details / constraints / parameters for a volunteer would, I think, still be confidential. I can't see any problem with that information being only in the hands of the nomcom. The public will not be able to tell that the nomcom might have chosen a different person but for some constraints. (Heck, that is probably always the case.) There is one reason I have heard occasionally that I wonder about. If the list is made public, will this cause public second guessing based on insufficient information after the results are announced. That, I think, would be a serious problem. And there is some risk (small, I think) of people pushing others to endorse them. This would seem easier with a public list, because the nomcom is not left wondering why they got the supportive email. On balance, I think we would be significantly better off with a public list because of the ability to get much wider feedback. Yours, Joel At 09:18 AM 5/7/2005, John C Klensin wrote: ... initial discussion of publishing candidates elided ... Even assuming that publishing candidate lists would result in better-quality feedback and permit the Nomcom to make better choices among plausibly-appropriate candidates, please look at the other side. There are people in the community who, for whatever reassons, find the prospect of a volunteer, have that public, and then not be selected process sufficiently painful to prevent them from volunteering... or certainly from volunteering more than once or twice. There are also subtle differences in how one can volunteer that can be expressed in confidence to the Nomcom: I don't really want to do this, but will serve if you conclude that it is important and I'm the best choice or I can't work with X and would accept the position only if X were not selected are comments that can be made today, but which don't show up on public lists. I believe that many of the people who would semi-volunteer with such conditions would decline to volunteer at all if their names would go on an undifferentiated public list. So, those of you who strongly advocate a public list... What percentage of the already-too-small potential candidate pool are you willing to lose? Are you convinced that anyone with sensitivities or conditions similar to those outlined above would make a bad AD if selected? Do you think the tradeoffs are worth it? john ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Complaining about ADs to Nomcom (Re: Voting (again))
Hi John, At 9:18 AM -0400 5/7/05, John C Klensin wrote: Whatever the reasons, we don't seem to have enough plausible candidates to provide reasonable turnover on the IESG (which, personally, I think would be healthy). What is reasonable turnover for the IESG? I haven't been on a nomcom, but (from the outside) most of them seem to start with the assumption that they should not change more than 3 IESG members at a time. If that is considered prudent, then we are talking about a situation where a maximum of 1/4 of the IESG will be intentionally replaced each cycle. Factoring in mid-term resignations and the possibility that the nomcom may occasionally make a poor choice requiring quicker turnover, successful ADs who are willing to continue serving will probably be in-office for an average of 8-10 years (4-5 terms). This seems to match existing practice. What level of turnover do you think would be healthy? And what would be the impacts of having more new ADs each year? Margaret ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: Complaining about ADs to Nomcom (Re: Voting (again))
Margaret Wasserman wrote: What is reasonable turnover for the IESG? ... successful ADs who are willing to continue serving will probably be in-office for an average of 8-10 years (4-5 terms). This seems to match existing practice. I personally find that this is too long. What level of turnover do you think would be healthy? And what would be the impacts of having more new ADs each year? My personal preference would be an average of 4 to 6 years. You have to ensure turnover for multiple reasons: even if you have the best intentions, power does corrupt, attention fades, you get disconnected from your peers, you develop an us versus them attitude, etc. I don't necessarily believe in term limits, but remaining in an AD position for more than 8 years feels very unhealthy. This is a volunteer organization. When you get a management position, your attitude should to make the best possible job for the duration of your mandate, then voluntarily withdraw and let someone take the next watch. -- Christian Huitema ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: Complaining about ADs to Nomcom (Re: Voting (again))
At 10:52 AM -0700 5/7/05, Christian Huitema wrote: What level of turnover do you think would be healthy? And what would be the impacts of having more new ADs each year? My personal preference would be an average of 4 to 6 years. You have to ensure turnover for multiple reasons: even if you have the best intentions, power does corrupt, attention fades, you get disconnected from your peers, you develop an us versus them attitude, etc. I don't necessarily believe in term limits, but remaining in an AD position for more than 8 years feels very unhealthy. I agree with you, but I think we may be discussing a serious problem that has already been solved. By my (possibly inaccurate) count, he current IESG members have been serving for the following lengths of time: Brian Carpenter, new Ted Hardie, 2 years Scott Hollenbeck, 1 year Mark Townsley, new Margaret Wasserman, 1+ years David Kessens, 2 years Bert Wijnen, 7 years Bill Fenner, 3+ years Alex Zinin, 3 years Sam Hartman, 1 year Russ Housley, 2 years Allison Mankin, 5 years (plus 4 years previously) Jon Peterson, 2 year So, only one AD has been serving sequentially for longer than your proposed 4-6 year period, and this group of 13 people has been served on the IESG for a total of 33 years, or an average of ~2-1/2 years per AD. Contrast this with the IESG from two years ago (March 2003) with their lengths of service as of that date: Harald Alvestrand, 2 years (plus 4 years previously) Steve Bellovin, 1 year Scott Bradner, 10 years Randy Bush, 4 years Patrik Faltstrom, 5 years Bill Fenner, 1+ years Ned Freed, 3 years Allison Mankin, 3 years (plus 4 years previously) Thomas Narten, 6 years Erik Nordmark, 4 years Jeff Schiller, 9 years Bert Wijnen, 5 years Alex Zinin, 1 year These 13 people has served (as of March 2003) on the IESG for a total of 62 years, or an average of ~4-3/4 years per AD. Only 4 of these 13 ADs who were severing in March 2003 are still serving 2 years later, so we have seen a turnover of approximately 70% of the ADs in a two year period. Do you actually think that we need an even higher turnover? Or are you pointing out an historical problem which may have been corrected over the past two years? Margaret ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: Complaining about ADs to Nomcom (Re: Voting (again))
Do you actually think that we need an even higher turnover? Or are you pointing out an historical problem which may have been corrected over the past two years? I was merely reacting to your assessment that renewal rate by the nom com of less than 25% leads to average terms of 8-10 years, which in my mind is too long. As you point out, in practice, people tend to not stay much longer than 4 years -- and we should thank them for serving even that long. There were a few examples of AD serving for 10 years or more, it is not the case anymore, and that is very well. -- Christian Huitema ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Complaining about ADs to Nomcom (Re: Voting (again))
Please understand the argument that was made strongly while RFC 3777 was in WG discussion: there is reason to believe that a substantial fraction of the potential candidates would *not* volunteer if they were entering a public race. It's hard to judge the validity of that argument, but it's certain that publishing the names would change the whole process in unpredictable ways. One way to open up the process would be to allow any participant to personally request a list of candidates from Nomcom, against a personal non-disclosure promise. (Not my idea; this was suggested during last week's IESG retreat.) Brian Soliman, Hesham wrote: Spencer, You hit an important issue. Having a small group of people choose who they want feedback from (granted everyone else is welcome to send feedback without knowing the options for ADs) is not a recipe for a successful process. I haven't yet seen a good reason for not publicising the names of people nominated for an AD position. Until this is done, we can't claim an open process for AD selection. Why have a selected group of people knowing all the information necessary to choose an AD? And on what basis are these people selected? I know people that are not chairing any WGs that were asked for input by the nomcom while others weren't. I can see pros and cons in publicising the list of nominees, but in the absence of a clear advantage I choose openness, because eventually, an open process should be self-correcting. I can't say the same about the current process. Hesham Spencer Dawkins wrote: Just to agree with JohnL, NOMCOM has been good about soliciting feedback, but I still think that we miss out on useful feedback because IETF members cannot reliably say who is a candidate and who is not. Some candidates have sent around BCC: mails, from time-to-time, saying that they are a candidate would appreciate folks to send comments to NOMCOM. This doesn't seem like a good way for getting information 'public.' I've served as a WG chair, and as a member of the General Area Directorate, so I'm one of the people that NOMCOM was actively seeking input from (this is a list of the people who have been nominated for X Area Director, plus a couple of ringers, please tell us what you think we should know that would help us make a better decision). My point is that I *have* seen a complete list of nominations, including a couple of ringers, for specific AD positions, and I *have* seen a complete list of nominations for IAB positions. This is not a bad thing (the AD positions were in areas I was working closely with). The less-than-desirable part is that my input on unannounced candidates was based on more information about who was being considered than was generally available. I could say that person would be the greatest disaster for the IETF since ..., and people who disagreed with my input don't even know the person is being considered ... unless they also got the same list, or unless that specific person happened to ask others to provide NOMCOM input. Hardly seems fair, does it? For the last two years, I've met with the NOMCOM representatives and gone through the list of every IAB/IESG member that's up for renewal, so it's not like people don't TRY to provide good input (positive and negative). But it's difficult to provide input on unannounced candidates, unless they out themselves. Are we supposed to send a list of notorious Internet kooks, just in case one of them has been nominated for something? In the absence of facts, there are lots of rumors about whether a specific IESG / IAB member is stepping down or not; reasons why; etc. This doesn't seem to be an optimal process, IMO. I've also had conversations with ADs who decided to step down, then decided not to, then decided to step down (lather, rinse, repeat). Private sampling doesn't seem to provide reliable information, even when the sampling is direct-to-the-intermittent-candidate. ... and, to go a tiny bit closer toward the edge ... saying that we believe someone can serve successfully as an AD for two years (and hopefully for four, since it takes a year to come up to speed, we are told), but is too sensitive to be nominated publically for the position, seems silly. If someone cares what people think that much, how can the same person serve with integrity after being selected? Spencer ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf === This email may contain
RE: Complaining about ADs to Nomcom (Re: Voting (again))
Please understand the argument that was made strongly while RFC 3777 was in WG discussion: there is reason to believe that a substantial fraction of the potential candidates would *not* volunteer if they were entering a public race. It's hard to judge the validity of that argument, but it's certain that publishing the names would change the whole process in unpredictable ways. = Sure I know about the argument, I just don't agree with it. Please note that I'm not suggesting an election race. There is no way to control that of course and it might happen inadvertently, but my point is that in the long term it's better to do that and have an open process that self-corrects. There is no way of measuring how useful something is without having a consistent open process. So at least we'd know how to improve once we have a measurable process. BTW, other SDOs have a similar election process with varying degrees of success (of course measuring success deoends on how you set the goals). One way to open up the process would be to allow any participant to personally request a list of candidates from Nomcom, against a personal non-disclosure promise. (Not my idea; this was suggested during last week's IESG retreat.) = If we do that we may as well put the list on the web. How do we define participant? Hesham Brian === This email may contain confidential and privileged material for the sole use of the intended recipient. Any review or distribution by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient please contact the sender and delete all copies. === ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: Complaining about ADs to Nomcom (Re: Voting (again))
At 01:10 PM 5/4/2005, Soliman, Hesham wrote: One way to open up the process would be to allow any participant to personally request a list of candidates from Nomcom, against a personal non-disclosure promise. (Not my idea; this was suggested during last week's IESG retreat.) = If we do that we may as well put the list on the web. How do we define participant? There is a difference between having participants who are interested in providing feedback ask for a copy of the list, with a promise of confidentiality, and give feedback - versus having that information publicly available. This sounds useful to me. I don't think that participant really needs to be defined. Those who will be interested are those who are involved. Currently, to obtain input from a more diverse set of people, Nomcomm has to guess who is appropriate to ask hope that a reasonable sampling of them will be willing/interested in responding. Alia ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: Complaining about ADs to Nomcom (Re: Voting (again))
At 01:10 PM 5/4/2005, Soliman, Hesham wrote: One way to open up the process would be to allow any participant to personally request a list of candidates from Nomcom, against a personal non-disclosure promise. (Not my idea; this was suggested during last week's IESG retreat.) = If we do that we may as well put the list on the web. How do we define participant? There is a difference between having participants who are interested in providing feedback ask for a copy of the list, with a promise of confidentiality, and give feedback - versus having that information publicly available. This sounds useful to me. I don't think that participant really needs to be defined. Those who will be interested are those who are involved. Currently, to obtain input from a more diverse set of people, Nomcomm has to guess who is appropriate to ask hope that a reasonable sampling of them will be willing/interested in responding. = Ok, since I think it will lead to the same effect (widely known nominees) I'm fine with that suggestion. Personally, I don't see the difference between doing what you describe above and sending the list of nominees to this mailing list. But either option is definitely better than what we have today IMHO. Hesham Alia === This email may contain confidential and privileged material for the sole use of the intended recipient. Any review or distribution by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient please contact the sender and delete all copies. === ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Complaining about ADs to Nomcom (Re: Voting (again))
Hi Brian, Please understand the argument that was made strongly while RFC 3777 was in WG discussion: there is reason to believe that a substantial fraction of the potential candidates would *not* volunteer if they were entering a public race. It's hard to judge the validity of that argument, but it's certain that publishing the names would change the whole process in unpredictable ways. Like Hesham, I am also aware of this argument and do not necessarily agree with it. (In fact, one could make the point that not being able to tell you have volunteered sounds a bit wimpy compared to what kind of public visibility and pressures the folks need to deal with if they are actually selected, particularly to the IESG.) Also, to give you a datapoint on potential candidates -- my name's been given to nomcom a couple of times and I certainly would not be bothered by folks knowing who has volunteered and who has not. And I think John L said something similar as well. --Jari ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: Complaining about ADs to Nomcom (Re: Voting (again))
Brian Jari, Please understand the argument that was made strongly while RFC 3777 was in WG discussion: there is reason to believe that a substantial fraction of the potential candidates would *not* volunteer if they were entering a public race. It's hard to judge the validity of that argument, but it's certain that publishing the names would change the whole process in unpredictable ways. Like Hesham, I am also aware of this argument and do not necessarily agree with it. (In fact, one could make the point that not being able to tell you have volunteered sounds a bit wimpy compared to what kind of public visibility and pressures the folks need to deal with if they are actually selected, particularly to the IESG.) Also, to give you a datapoint on potential candidates -- my name's been given to nomcom a couple of times and I certainly would not be bothered by folks knowing who has volunteered and who has not. And I think John L said something similar as well. I wouldn't mind if my name was made public the times that I have volunteered; but again, I wasn't active in the discussions of RFC3777. I agree with Jari on the above points. John ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Complaining about ADs to Nomcom (Re: Voting (again))
John, Spencer, The issue you raise about different people having different amount of information is a valid one. I originally thought of this problem mainly from the point of view of an individual being able to provide good input, but it would indeed be fair that all IETFers have the same ability to provide input. --Jari Spencer Dawkins wrote: Just to agree with JohnL, NOMCOM has been good about soliciting feedback, but I still think that we miss out on useful feedback because IETF members cannot reliably say who is a candidate and who is not. Some candidates have sent around BCC: mails, from time-to-time, saying that they are a candidate would appreciate folks to send comments to NOMCOM. This doesn't seem like a good way for getting information 'public.' I've served as a WG chair, and as a member of the General Area Directorate, so I'm one of the people that NOMCOM was actively seeking input from (this is a list of the people who have been nominated for X Area Director, plus a couple of ringers, please tell us what you think we should know that would help us make a better decision). My point is that I *have* seen a complete list of nominations, including a couple of ringers, for specific AD positions, and I *have* seen a complete list of nominations for IAB positions. This is not a bad thing (the AD positions were in areas I was working closely with). The less-than-desirable part is that my input on unannounced candidates was based on more information about who was being considered than was generally available. I could say that person would be the greatest disaster for the IETF since ..., and people who disagreed with my input don't even know the person is being considered ... unless they also got the same list, or unless that specific person happened to ask others to provide NOMCOM input. Hardly seems fair, does it? For the last two years, I've met with the NOMCOM representatives and gone through the list of every IAB/IESG member that's up for renewal, so it's not like people don't TRY to provide good input (positive and negative). But it's difficult to provide input on unannounced candidates, unless they out themselves. Are we supposed to send a list of notorious Internet kooks, just in case one of them has been nominated for something? In the absence of facts, there are lots of rumors about whether a specific IESG / IAB member is stepping down or not; reasons why; etc. This doesn't seem to be an optimal process, IMO. I've also had conversations with ADs who decided to step down, then decided not to, then decided to step down (lather, rinse, repeat). Private sampling doesn't seem to provide reliable information, even when the sampling is direct-to-the-intermittent-candidate. ... and, to go a tiny bit closer toward the edge ... saying that we believe someone can serve successfully as an AD for two years (and hopefully for four, since it takes a year to come up to speed, we are told), but is too sensitive to be nominated publically for the position, seems silly. If someone cares what people think that much, how can the same person serve with integrity after being selected? Spencer ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: Complaining about ADs to Nomcom (Re: Voting (again))
Spencer, You hit an important issue. Having a small group of people choose who they want feedback from (granted everyone else is welcome to send feedback without knowing the options for ADs) is not a recipe for a successful process. I haven't yet seen a good reason for not publicising the names of people nominated for an AD position. Until this is done, we can't claim an open process for AD selection. Why have a selected group of people knowing all the information necessary to choose an AD? And on what basis are these people selected? I know people that are not chairing any WGs that were asked for input by the nomcom while others weren't. I can see pros and cons in publicising the list of nominees, but in the absence of a clear advantage I choose openness, because eventually, an open process should be self-correcting. I can't say the same about the current process. Hesham Spencer Dawkins wrote: Just to agree with JohnL, NOMCOM has been good about soliciting feedback, but I still think that we miss out on useful feedback because IETF members cannot reliably say who is a candidate and who is not. Some candidates have sent around BCC: mails, from time-to-time, saying that they are a candidate would appreciate folks to send comments to NOMCOM. This doesn't seem like a good way for getting information 'public.' I've served as a WG chair, and as a member of the General Area Directorate, so I'm one of the people that NOMCOM was actively seeking input from (this is a list of the people who have been nominated for X Area Director, plus a couple of ringers, please tell us what you think we should know that would help us make a better decision). My point is that I *have* seen a complete list of nominations, including a couple of ringers, for specific AD positions, and I *have* seen a complete list of nominations for IAB positions. This is not a bad thing (the AD positions were in areas I was working closely with). The less-than-desirable part is that my input on unannounced candidates was based on more information about who was being considered than was generally available. I could say that person would be the greatest disaster for the IETF since ..., and people who disagreed with my input don't even know the person is being considered ... unless they also got the same list, or unless that specific person happened to ask others to provide NOMCOM input. Hardly seems fair, does it? For the last two years, I've met with the NOMCOM representatives and gone through the list of every IAB/IESG member that's up for renewal, so it's not like people don't TRY to provide good input (positive and negative). But it's difficult to provide input on unannounced candidates, unless they out themselves. Are we supposed to send a list of notorious Internet kooks, just in case one of them has been nominated for something? In the absence of facts, there are lots of rumors about whether a specific IESG / IAB member is stepping down or not; reasons why; etc. This doesn't seem to be an optimal process, IMO. I've also had conversations with ADs who decided to step down, then decided not to, then decided to step down (lather, rinse, repeat). Private sampling doesn't seem to provide reliable information, even when the sampling is direct-to-the-intermittent-candidate. ... and, to go a tiny bit closer toward the edge ... saying that we believe someone can serve successfully as an AD for two years (and hopefully for four, since it takes a year to come up to speed, we are told), but is too sensitive to be nominated publically for the position, seems silly. If someone cares what people think that much, how can the same person serve with integrity after being selected? Spencer ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf === This email may contain confidential and privileged material for the sole use of the intended recipient. Any review or distribution by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient please contact the sender and delete all copies. === ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Re: Complaining about ADs to Nomcom (Re: Voting (again))
Jari, I agree with you on this point. I've tossed my hat into nomcom a few times, but I would have either reconsidered or would have been more active had I known the other candidates. Additionally, I could have given feedback on candidates had I known that they were candidates. NOMCOM has been good about soliciting feedback, but I still think that we miss out on useful feedback because IETF members cannot reliably say who is a candidate and who is not. Some candidates have sent around BCC: mails, from time-to-time, saying that they are a candidate would appreciate folks to send comments to NOMCOM. This doesn't seem like a good way for getting information 'public.' In the absence of facts, there are lots of rumors about whether a specific IESG / IAB member is stepping down or not; reasons why; etc. This doesn't seem to be an optimal process, IMO. From: Jari Arkko [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: 2005/04/27 Wed PM 01:59:38 EEST To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] CC: Sam Hartman [EMAIL PROTECTED], ietf@ietf.org, Dave Crocker [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Complaining about ADs to Nomcom (Re: Voting (again)) Hi Lakshminath, As the title indicates, it is not sufficient to just complain about an AD (I guess it might be sufficient in the Recall process), it is also necessary to provide a pool of, or just one for that matter, candidates who are interested and qualified. Yes, I have real examples. (May I suggest that Nomcom procedures be revised to make the final candidate list, or at least the number of interested candidates for each position, be made public?) I like this suggestion. But first: I'd rather call this thread feedback than complaining, because I hope the nomcom gets a lot of input and not just when someone is doing badly. But back to the suggestion. I have beeing trying to send a lot of input on various positions and candidates to the nomcom in recent years. But from the point of view of a regular IETF participant this isn't always easy. Basically, the problem is that we have a lot of input to give you, but we lack the data about the candidates! Of course, we can easily give you feedback on the current AD. But we've had a large number of people leave the IAB and IESG recently, and it isn't easy to provide feedback about potential candidates. Sometimes I tried to do that, just to be surprised that the people I commented on weren't even running or someone I didn't know or didn't consider as a potential candidate was in the process. The nomcom goes out to the area chairs and other contributors and solicits feedback, revealing at least some of the potential candidate names. This helps, but its fairly limited. Or at least I would have wanted to give more feedback on more areas than I received questions from the nomcom. I would suggest that (agreeing) candidate lists be made public early in the process, in order to make it easier for the IETFers to provide you feedback. This would also increase the transparency of the process. And yes, I am aware of the argument that some candidates might be shy to reveal that they are running for the job. But we are a major organization, and I would suggest that the benefits for the organization outweigh benefits (if any) for the candidates. --Jari ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Re: Complaining about ADs to Nomcom (Re: Voting (again))
Just to agree with JohnL, NOMCOM has been good about soliciting feedback, but I still think that we miss out on useful feedback because IETF members cannot reliably say who is a candidate and who is not. Some candidates have sent around BCC: mails, from time-to-time, saying that they are a candidate would appreciate folks to send comments to NOMCOM. This doesn't seem like a good way for getting information 'public.' I've served as a WG chair, and as a member of the General Area Directorate, so I'm one of the people that NOMCOM was actively seeking input from (this is a list of the people who have been nominated for X Area Director, plus a couple of ringers, please tell us what you think we should know that would help us make a better decision). My point is that I *have* seen a complete list of nominations, including a couple of ringers, for specific AD positions, and I *have* seen a complete list of nominations for IAB positions. This is not a bad thing (the AD positions were in areas I was working closely with). The less-than-desirable part is that my input on unannounced candidates was based on more information about who was being considered than was generally available. I could say that person would be the greatest disaster for the IETF since ..., and people who disagreed with my input don't even know the person is being considered ... unless they also got the same list, or unless that specific person happened to ask others to provide NOMCOM input. Hardly seems fair, does it? For the last two years, I've met with the NOMCOM representatives and gone through the list of every IAB/IESG member that's up for renewal, so it's not like people don't TRY to provide good input (positive and negative). But it's difficult to provide input on unannounced candidates, unless they out themselves. Are we supposed to send a list of notorious Internet kooks, just in case one of them has been nominated for something? In the absence of facts, there are lots of rumors about whether a specific IESG / IAB member is stepping down or not; reasons why; etc. This doesn't seem to be an optimal process, IMO. I've also had conversations with ADs who decided to step down, then decided not to, then decided to step down (lather, rinse, repeat). Private sampling doesn't seem to provide reliable information, even when the sampling is direct-to-the-intermittent-candidate. ... and, to go a tiny bit closer toward the edge ... saying that we believe someone can serve successfully as an AD for two years (and hopefully for four, since it takes a year to come up to speed, we are told), but is too sensitive to be nominated publically for the position, seems silly. If someone cares what people think that much, how can the same person serve with integrity after being selected? Spencer ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Re: Complaining about ADs to Nomcom (Re: Voting (again))
NOMCOM has been good about soliciting feedback, but I still think that we miss out on useful feedback because IETF members cannot reliably say who is a candidate and who is not. YES! d/ --- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking +1.408.246.8253 dcrocker a t ... WE'VE MOVED to: www.bbiw.net ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Complaining about ADs to Nomcom (Re: Voting (again))
Hi Lakshminath, As the title indicates, it is not sufficient to just complain about an AD (I guess it might be sufficient in the Recall process), it is also necessary to provide a pool of, or just one for that matter, candidates who are interested and qualified. Yes, I have real examples. (May I suggest that Nomcom procedures be revised to make the final candidate list, or at least the number of interested candidates for each position, be made public?) I like this suggestion. But first: I'd rather call this thread feedback than complaining, because I hope the nomcom gets a lot of input and not just when someone is doing badly. But back to the suggestion. I have beeing trying to send a lot of input on various positions and candidates to the nomcom in recent years. But from the point of view of a regular IETF participant this isn't always easy. Basically, the problem is that we have a lot of input to give you, but we lack the data about the candidates! Of course, we can easily give you feedback on the current AD. But we've had a large number of people leave the IAB and IESG recently, and it isn't easy to provide feedback about potential candidates. Sometimes I tried to do that, just to be surprised that the people I commented on weren't even running or someone I didn't know or didn't consider as a potential candidate was in the process. The nomcom goes out to the area chairs and other contributors and solicits feedback, revealing at least some of the potential candidate names. This helps, but its fairly limited. Or at least I would have wanted to give more feedback on more areas than I received questions from the nomcom. I would suggest that (agreeing) candidate lists be made public early in the process, in order to make it easier for the IETFers to provide you feedback. This would also increase the transparency of the process. And yes, I am aware of the argument that some candidates might be shy to reveal that they are running for the job. But we are a major organization, and I would suggest that the benefits for the organization outweigh benefits (if any) for the candidates. --Jari ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Complaining about ADs to Nomcom (Re: Voting (again))
... I would suggest that (agreeing) candidate lists be made public early in the process, in order to make it easier for the IETFers to provide you feedback. This would also increase the transparency of the process. And yes, I am aware of the argument that some candidates might be shy to reveal that they are running for the job. But we are a major organization, and I would suggest that the benefits for the organization outweigh benefits (if any) for the candidates. Just a fact: this point *was* debated at length during the discussion of what became RFC 3777. And the WG Chair called the consensus. Of course, the consensus may be different when we next revise it. Brian ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Complaining about ADs to Nomcom (Re: Voting (again))
FWIW, there was the separate suggestion that NOMCOM publish the NUMBER of candidates who agreed to be considered, and this seems helpful without setting off the usual alarms... From: Brian E Carpenter [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Jari Arkko [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: ietf@ietf.org; Dave Crocker [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, April 27, 2005 7:26 AM Subject: Re: Complaining about ADs to Nomcom (Re: Voting (again)) ... I would suggest that (agreeing) candidate lists be made public early in the process, in order to make it easier for the IETFers to provide you feedback. This would also increase the transparency of the process. And yes, I am aware of the argument that some candidates might be shy to reveal that they are running for the job. But we are a major organization, and I would suggest that the benefits for the organization outweigh benefits (if any) for the candidates. Just a fact: this point *was* debated at length during the discussion of what became RFC 3777. And the WG Chair called the consensus. Of course, the consensus may be different when we next revise it. Brian ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Complaining about ADs to Nomcom (Re: Voting (again))
At 13:59 +0300 4/27/05, Jari Arkko wrote: I like this suggestion. But first: I'd rather call this thread feedback than complaining, because I hope the nomcom gets a lot of input and not just when someone is doing badly. From my experience - I'd call it complaining. ;) Rarely are compliments offered without a prompt. -- -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Edward Lewis+1-571-434-5468 NeuStar If you knew what I was thinking, you'd understand what I was saying. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Complaining about ADs to Nomcom (Re: Voting (again))
At 7:43 -0500 4/27/05, Spencer Dawkins wrote: FWIW, there was the separate suggestion that NOMCOM publish the NUMBER of candidates who agreed to be considered, and this seems helpful without setting off the usual alarms... When I sat on the nomcom, we tried to get more information about willing candidates by submitting a list padded with non-willing candidates to obscure the true list. If we are going to that length to protect those under consideration, I think giving the number of competitors might not be desirable. (What if it's 1? What if it's 2? What if you realize that you lost to so and so in a head-to-head race?) If I had my naive druthers, having been on a committee with a lot of fresh blood - I would rather make the list of candidates known and open (like the IETF) to invite targeted comments. Selections ought to be objective - that's the way we want the technology to be. Given the context of fresh blood - this makes people who are diligent able to make better decisions without all of the guess work borne from not having experience (= pre-conceived notions). In a really open and secure process, losers would be given a dump on why they lost. Like a student getting an F - it's fair to tell someone how to improve for the next test. (Another naive opinion of mine.) I can understand why the list might be private - not willing to reveal who is available, who lost, etc. -- -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Edward Lewis+1-571-434-5468 NeuStar If you knew what I was thinking, you'd understand what I was saying. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Complaining about ADs to Nomcom (Re: Voting (again))
I'll chime in on this, having been a NomCom'er at one time. Inexperienced people on Nomcom In my year, there were quite a few who would fit this category. I found these folks to be quite objective and a refreshing source of questions. The one hindering factor was that they, because of not having the history, did not know the direction in which to search. Influence of Liaison Members And that is where the liaison members came in. Liaison is kind of a misnomer, the data transfer is one way - into the NomCom. NomCom Liaisons do not (hopefully) take NomCom data back to the other organization. That leads into this most important point: Complain about an AD, but also nominate candidates who are interested in the job or 'there were no other choices' might well be true Especially for NomComs that are thin on experience. NomCom'ers don't have an obvious way to recruit candidates. The only approach is based on who you can think of (besides those whose name are submitted) - which winds up being a popularity contest. A meritocracy it isn't. -- -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Edward Lewis+1-571-434-5468 NeuStar If you knew what I was thinking, you'd understand what I was saying. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
