Re: Nomcom off in the wilderness: Transport AD
I'm really, really against turning this into an election-like process just because one nomcom did a bad job (and I agree they did). I've puzzled by this statement nomcom did a bad job. How could we, people outside of noncom, know that they did a bad job? They are the only ones who have all the information, all the variables in the equation. We don't. So I believe that, at this stage, we can't make that assertion. Being a positive person, I (want to) trust them. Regards, Benoit
Re: Nomcom off in the wilderness: Transport AD
On 3/9/13 1:46 PM, Benoit Claise wrote: I'm really, really against turning this into an election-like process just because one nomcom did a bad job (and I agree they did). I've puzzled by this statement nomcom did a bad job. How could we, people outside of noncom, know that they did a bad job? What we know is that it hasn't produced a AD that has been approved by the IAB. It's premature at the very minimum and imho probably inappropriate to start assigning blame. They are the only ones who have all the information, all the variables in the equation. We don't. So I believe that, at this stage, we can't make that assertion. Being a positive person, I (want to) trust them. Regards, Benoit
Re: Nomcom off in the wilderness: Transport AD
On 3/6/2013 4:26 AM, Sam Hartman wrote: However, there is something you can do. Take a quick moment to look at the set of nominees and consider what you know about their qualifications. ... I'd also appreciate private feedback on how I could improve my approach for raising this concern. I'm not at all sure that sending this message was the best choice, ... I don't have an opinion about the current candidates. This note concerns Sam's effort: I think it's thoughtful and reasonable, within the bounds of the situation, IETF rules, and IETF culture. And I have a further suggestion, which some other folk and I happened to have discussed privately some time ago and unrelated to the specific TSV situation... There's an option available that the candidates might want to consider, to facilitate the public review of candidate qualifications: Candidates fill out a questionnaire for Nomcom review. Roughly, it has two parts, with one that is available to Nomcom and the appropriate Confirming Body, and a second that is withheld from the Confirming Body. Candidates could choose to circulate the first part publicly. Nomcom is prohibited from making these documents public, but the candidates are not. The long-standing argument against publicly issuing this information is that it might be seen as politicking, and the IETF Nomcom process tries hard to avoid such opportunities. The language in the forms is necessarily self-promoting. After all, the candidate is trying to explain why they think they are appropriate for a job. However there is a difference between explaining why you think you are qualified, versus the hype of politicking. One would hope that IETF participants can tell that difference. And it could be helpful for the community to see how a candidate sees themselves. d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net
Re: Nomcom off in the wilderness: Transport AD
Dave, it seems to me that with your suggestion it feels as if you (or we the community) want to redo some of the nomcom work? I.e. you do not trust their evaluations? They also have received (I presume) lots of feedback on the candidates and probably did some interviews. We do not have that info. So tough to challenge them based on only nominees statements. Bert Wijnen On 3/6/13 2:57 PM, Dave Crocker wrote: On 3/6/2013 4:26 AM, Sam Hartman wrote: However, there is something you can do. Take a quick moment to look at the set of nominees and consider what you know about their qualifications. ... I'd also appreciate private feedback on how I could improve my approach for raising this concern. I'm not at all sure that sending this message was the best choice, ... I don't have an opinion about the current candidates. This note concerns Sam's effort: I think it's thoughtful and reasonable, within the bounds of the situation, IETF rules, and IETF culture. And I have a further suggestion, which some other folk and I happened to have discussed privately some time ago and unrelated to the specific TSV situation... There's an option available that the candidates might want to consider, to facilitate the public review of candidate qualifications: Candidates fill out a questionnaire for Nomcom review. Roughly, it has two parts, with one that is available to Nomcom and the appropriate Confirming Body, and a second that is withheld from the Confirming Body. Candidates could choose to circulate the first part publicly. Nomcom is prohibited from making these documents public, but the candidates are not. The long-standing argument against publicly issuing this information is that it might be seen as politicking, and the IETF Nomcom process tries hard to avoid such opportunities. The language in the forms is necessarily self-promoting. After all, the candidate is trying to explain why they think they are appropriate for a job. However there is a difference between explaining why you think you are qualified, versus the hype of politicking. One would hope that IETF participants can tell that difference. And it could be helpful for the community to see how a candidate sees themselves. d/
RE: Nomcom off in the wilderness: Transport AD
Dave, There's an aspect of what people tend to include when talking about politicking that is not - AFAIK - part of the job as a member of the IESG or as an AD. That aspect is the desire to be much in the public. So far, it has not been any part of the normal duties of an IESG member or AD to hold press conferences, glad-handing with the masses, baby kissing, etc. Opening up the process to allow (read encourage) candidates to go public with their (so far) relatively private observations about why they would be a good candidate for the job is very likely to effectively eliminate some potential candidates who are unwilling to do so but are otherwise completely qualified to do the job. This would become particularly true if the NomCom - and the IETF as a whole - were to develop expectations that this would routinely happen, or suspicions about those who don't wish to do so. Because this aspect of politicking should not become a criteria for the job, there is more to the general desire to avoid it than the notion that we just don't want to see it. -- Eric -Original Message- From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Dave Crocker Sent: Wednesday, March 06, 2013 8:57 AM To: hartmans-i...@mit.edu Cc: ietf@ietf.org Subject: Re: Nomcom off in the wilderness: Transport AD On 3/6/2013 4:26 AM, Sam Hartman wrote: However, there is something you can do. Take a quick moment to look at the set of nominees and consider what you know about their qualifications. ... I'd also appreciate private feedback on how I could improve my approach for raising this concern. I'm not at all sure that sending this message was the best choice, ... I don't have an opinion about the current candidates. This note concerns Sam's effort: I think it's thoughtful and reasonable, within the bounds of the situation, IETF rules, and IETF culture. And I have a further suggestion, which some other folk and I happened to have discussed privately some time ago and unrelated to the specific TSV situation... There's an option available that the candidates might want to consider, to facilitate the public review of candidate qualifications: Candidates fill out a questionnaire for Nomcom review. Roughly, it has two parts, with one that is available to Nomcom and the appropriate Confirming Body, and a second that is withheld from the Confirming Body. Candidates could choose to circulate the first part publicly. Nomcom is prohibited from making these documents public, but the candidates are not. The long-standing argument against publicly issuing this information is that it might be seen as politicking, and the IETF Nomcom process tries hard to avoid such opportunities. The language in the forms is necessarily self-promoting. After all, the candidate is trying to explain why they think they are appropriate for a job. However there is a difference between explaining why you think you are qualified, versus the hype of politicking. One would hope that IETF participants can tell that difference. And it could be helpful for the community to see how a candidate sees themselves. d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net
Re: Nomcom off in the wilderness: Transport AD
Dave == Dave Crocker d...@dcrocker.net writes: Dave And I have a further suggestion, which some other folk and I Dave happened to have discussed privately some time ago and Dave unrelated to the specific TSV situation... Dave There's an option available that the candidates might want to Dave consider, to facilitate the public review of candidate Dave qualifications: Dave Candidates fill out a questionnaire for Nomcom review. Dave Roughly, it has two parts, with one that is available to Dave Nomcom and the appropriate Confirming Body, and a second that Dave is withheld from the Confirming Body. Dave Candidates could choose to circulate the first part Dave publicly. I think having a public discussion of specific candidates would be undesirable. Because Russ's message was posted while the nomcom process is ongoing, we're already in a situation where it feels like where we're publicly debating whether a set of named candidates are preferable to an empty seat. I understand russ dworked as hard as he could to avoid that. However, it's reasonably obvious that it's impossible to avoid that and if you read comments in the ietf list, it's actually true that the community has taken it to that level. Now, perhaps there are folks in the IETf with egos big enough that they're not phased by standing in front of the community while the community debates whether an empty seat would be an improvement over them. I actually suspect knowing that can happen is likely to reduce future candidate pools. I know I'd almost certainly withdraw from the process rather than face that. This process has reduced my willingness to consider future nominations; pressuring candidates to release their answers to questions would do so further. --Sam
Re: Nomcom off in the wilderness: Transport AD
On 3/6/2013 6:03 AM, Bert Wijnen (IETF) wrote: Dave, it seems to me that with your suggestion it feels as if you (or we the community) want to redo some of the nomcom work? I.e. you do not trust their evaluations? They also have received (I presume) lots of feedback on the candidates and probably did some interviews. We do not have that info. So tough to challenge them based on only nominees statements. Bert, I'm not commenting on the current Nomcom. I don't have an opinion about the current Nomcom. Sam is calling for the community to do additional review of the current candidates and provide additional input. I am merely suggesting something that would facilitate that: People providing feedback can tailor their comments better if they have some idea of the candidates own statements to Nomcom. The earlier, private discussion that I referenced was to the potential benefits of making the questionnaires public regularly, but that's a major policy change. My current suggestion does not require that, since it's a matter of personal choice by each candidate. As for the possible long-term change in policy, different factors affect who provides comments to Nomcom and what comments they provide. I can't see a downside to the public availability of a candidate's own statements to Nomcom about their background and qualifications. I see the upside of providing the community with a more complete gauge for judging what types of comments to provide as feedback to Nomcom about the candidate. d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net
RE: Nomcom off in the wilderness: Transport AD
--On Wednesday, March 06, 2013 14:16 + Eric Gray eric.g...@ericsson.com wrote: ... So far, it has not been any part of the normal duties of an IESG member or AD to hold press conferences, glad-handing with the masses, baby kissing, etc. ... I can't speak to baby kissing but the above statement is true only if you exclude the IETF Chair from IESG member or AD. Perhaps we could change it if we really wanted to, but we should face the fact --and I hope that Nomcoms understand-- that the IETF Chair role has expanded to include a great deal of public representation of the IETF and, indeed, public politics. john
RE: Nomcom off in the wilderness: Transport AD
John, I considered this before making my reply, especially in light of a number of recent events with which I am intimately familiar. To become the Chair of the IESG involves a second level of selection that is much more political. You have to be selected - I believe - for the role by your peers on the IESG. This then is a matter for the IESG, more than the NomCom, or the IETF as a whole. This is - I feel sure - one of the things that a NomCom has to consider in picking folks for IESG membership: there needs to be at least one AD on the IESG that is both willing and able to take on this role. But - let's face it - this should be obvious to any reasonably competent NomCom that is having to replace an outgoing Chair. But it is most definitely NOT something that every AD has to be prepared to do... -- Eric -Original Message- From: John C Klensin [mailto:john-i...@jck.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 06, 2013 9:22 AM To: Eric Gray Cc: ietf@ietf.org Subject: RE: Nomcom off in the wilderness: Transport AD Importance: High --On Wednesday, March 06, 2013 14:16 + Eric Gray eric.g...@ericsson.com wrote: ... So far, it has not been any part of the normal duties of an IESG member or AD to hold press conferences, glad-handing with the masses, baby kissing, etc. ... I can't speak to baby kissing but the above statement is true only if you exclude the IETF Chair from IESG member or AD. Perhaps we could change it if we really wanted to, but we should face the fact --and I hope that Nomcoms understand-- that the IETF Chair role has expanded to include a great deal of public representation of the IETF and, indeed, public politics. john
Re: Nomcom off in the wilderness: Transport AD
Eric, As far as I know, that's completely wrong. The IETF Chair, sometimes known as the AD for the General Area, is selected by the nomcom and confirmed by the IAB just like all other ADs. They are not elected chair of the IESG by the IESG members. Thanks, Donald = Donald E. Eastlake 3rd +1-508-333-2270 (cell) 155 Beaver Street, Milford, MA 01757 USA d3e...@gmail.com On Wed, Mar 6, 2013 at 9:29 AM, Eric Gray eric.g...@ericsson.com wrote: John, I considered this before making my reply, especially in light of a number of recent events with which I am intimately familiar. To become the Chair of the IESG involves a second level of selection that is much more political. You have to be selected - I believe - for the role by your peers on the IESG. This then is a matter for the IESG, more than the NomCom, or the IETF as a whole. This is - I feel sure - one of the things that a NomCom has to consider in picking folks for IESG membership: there needs to be at least one AD on the IESG that is both willing and able to take on this role. But - let's face it - this should be obvious to any reasonably competent NomCom that is having to replace an outgoing Chair. But it is most definitely NOT something that every AD has to be prepared to do... -- Eric -Original Message- From: John C Klensin [mailto:john-i...@jck.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 06, 2013 9:22 AM To: Eric Gray Cc: ietf@ietf.org Subject: RE: Nomcom off in the wilderness: Transport AD Importance: High --On Wednesday, March 06, 2013 14:16 + Eric Gray eric.g...@ericsson.com wrote: ... So far, it has not been any part of the normal duties of an IESG member or AD to hold press conferences, glad-handing with the masses, baby kissing, etc. ... I can't speak to baby kissing but the above statement is true only if you exclude the IETF Chair from IESG member or AD. Perhaps we could change it if we really wanted to, but we should face the fact --and I hope that Nomcoms understand-- that the IETF Chair role has expanded to include a great deal of public representation of the IETF and, indeed, public politics. john
Re: Nomcom off in the wilderness: Transport AD
Eric, You are describing the process of IAB selection as opposed to IESG selection for ensuring there is someone that is a potential chair. The IAB voting members select the IAB chair. The IESG members do not select the IETF chair. Regards, Mary. On Wed, Mar 6, 2013 at 8:29 AM, Eric Gray eric.g...@ericsson.com wrote: John, I considered this before making my reply, especially in light of a number of recent events with which I am intimately familiar. To become the Chair of the IESG involves a second level of selection that is much more political. You have to be selected - I believe - for the role by your peers on the IESG. This then is a matter for the IESG, more than the NomCom, or the IETF as a whole. This is - I feel sure - one of the things that a NomCom has to consider in picking folks for IESG membership: there needs to be at least one AD on the IESG that is both willing and able to take on this role. But - let's face it - this should be obvious to any reasonably competent NomCom that is having to replace an outgoing Chair. But it is most definitely NOT something that every AD has to be prepared to do... -- Eric -Original Message- From: John C Klensin [mailto:john-i...@jck.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 06, 2013 9:22 AM To: Eric Gray Cc: ietf@ietf.org Subject: RE: Nomcom off in the wilderness: Transport AD Importance: High --On Wednesday, March 06, 2013 14:16 + Eric Gray eric.g...@ericsson.com wrote: ... So far, it has not been any part of the normal duties of an IESG member or AD to hold press conferences, glad-handing with the masses, baby kissing, etc. ... I can't speak to baby kissing but the above statement is true only if you exclude the IETF Chair from IESG member or AD. Perhaps we could change it if we really wanted to, but we should face the fact --and I hope that Nomcoms understand-- that the IETF Chair role has expanded to include a great deal of public representation of the IETF and, indeed, public politics. john
Re: Nomcom off in the wilderness: Transport AD
Eric, On 06/03/2013 14:29, Eric Gray wrote: John, I considered this before making my reply, especially in light of a number of recent events with which I am intimately familiar. To become the Chair of the IESG involves a second level of selection that is much more political. You have to be selected - I believe - for the role by your peers on the IESG. You believe wrongly. The NomCom nominates the IETF Chair, who also serves as IESG Chair and as AD for the General Area. This then is a matter for the IESG, more than the NomCom, or the IETF as a whole. This is - I feel sure - one of the things that a NomCom has to consider in picking folks for IESG membership: there needs to be at least one AD on the IESG that is both willing and able to take on this role. That applies to the IAB, but not to the IESG. Brian
Re: Nomcom off in the wilderness: Transport AD
Eric: you may be thinking of the IAB chair. IETF chair / Gen AD is selected by the noncom, whereas the IAB chair is selected by IAB members (from the pool of the IAB members). [Baby kissing? Now there is a job requirement that I missed… :-) ] Jari
Re: Nomcom off in the wilderness: Transport AD
Hi Eric, The IETF Chair (who also chairs the IESG) is not selected by the IESG members from amongst themselves. The IETF Chair is chosen by the nomcom directly. The IAB chair is chosen by the IAB as you have described. Margaret On Mar 6, 2013, at 9:29 AM, Eric Gray eric.g...@ericsson.com wrote: John, I considered this before making my reply, especially in light of a number of recent events with which I am intimately familiar. To become the Chair of the IESG involves a second level of selection that is much more political. You have to be selected - I believe - for the role by your peers on the IESG. This then is a matter for the IESG, more than the NomCom, or the IETF as a whole. This is - I feel sure - one of the things that a NomCom has to consider in picking folks for IESG membership: there needs to be at least one AD on the IESG that is both willing and able to take on this role. But - let's face it - this should be obvious to any reasonably competent NomCom that is having to replace an outgoing Chair. But it is most definitely NOT something that every AD has to be prepared to do... -- Eric -Original Message- From: John C Klensin [mailto:john-i...@jck.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 06, 2013 9:22 AM To: Eric Gray Cc: ietf@ietf.org Subject: RE: Nomcom off in the wilderness: Transport AD Importance: High --On Wednesday, March 06, 2013 14:16 + Eric Gray eric.g...@ericsson.com wrote: ... So far, it has not been any part of the normal duties of an IESG member or AD to hold press conferences, glad-handing with the masses, baby kissing, etc. ... I can't speak to baby kissing but the above statement is true only if you exclude the IETF Chair from IESG member or AD. Perhaps we could change it if we really wanted to, but we should face the fact --and I hope that Nomcoms understand-- that the IETF Chair role has expanded to include a great deal of public representation of the IETF and, indeed, public politics. john
RE: Nomcom off in the wilderness: Transport AD
Thanks. -Original Message- From: Margaret Wasserman [mailto:m...@lilacglade.org] Sent: Wednesday, March 06, 2013 9:46 AM To: Eric Gray Cc: John C Klensin; ietf@ietf.org Subject: Re: Nomcom off in the wilderness: Transport AD Importance: High Hi Eric, The IETF Chair (who also chairs the IESG) is not selected by the IESG members from amongst themselves. The IETF Chair is chosen by the nomcom directly. The IAB chair is chosen by the IAB as you have described. Margaret On Mar 6, 2013, at 9:29 AM, Eric Gray eric.g...@ericsson.com wrote: John, I considered this before making my reply, especially in light of a number of recent events with which I am intimately familiar. To become the Chair of the IESG involves a second level of selection that is much more political. You have to be selected - I believe - for the role by your peers on the IESG. This then is a matter for the IESG, more than the NomCom, or the IETF as a whole. This is - I feel sure - one of the things that a NomCom has to consider in picking folks for IESG membership: there needs to be at least one AD on the IESG that is both willing and able to take on this role. But - let's face it - this should be obvious to any reasonably competent NomCom that is having to replace an outgoing Chair. But it is most definitely NOT something that every AD has to be prepared to do... -- Eric -Original Message- From: John C Klensin [mailto:john-i...@jck.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 06, 2013 9:22 AM To: Eric Gray Cc: ietf@ietf.org Subject: RE: Nomcom off in the wilderness: Transport AD Importance: High --On Wednesday, March 06, 2013 14:16 + Eric Gray eric.g...@ericsson.com wrote: ... So far, it has not been any part of the normal duties of an IESG member or AD to hold press conferences, glad-handing with the masses, baby kissing, etc. ... I can't speak to baby kissing but the above statement is true only if you exclude the IETF Chair from IESG member or AD. Perhaps we could change it if we really wanted to, but we should face the fact --and I hope that Nomcoms understand-- that the IETF Chair role has expanded to include a great deal of public representation of the IETF and, indeed, public politics. john
RE: Nomcom off in the wilderness: Transport AD
Brian, Thanks! Not sure that this changes anything with respect to the rest of the IESG, however... -- Eric -Original Message- From: Brian E Carpenter [mailto:brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 06, 2013 9:41 AM To: Eric Gray Cc: ietf@ietf.org Subject: Re: Nomcom off in the wilderness: Transport AD Importance: High Eric, On 06/03/2013 14:29, Eric Gray wrote: John, I considered this before making my reply, especially in light of a number of recent events with which I am intimately familiar. To become the Chair of the IESG involves a second level of selection that is much more political. You have to be selected - I believe - for the role by your peers on the IESG. You believe wrongly. The NomCom nominates the IETF Chair, who also serves as IESG Chair and as AD for the General Area. This then is a matter for the IESG, more than the NomCom, or the IETF as a whole. This is - I feel sure - one of the things that a NomCom has to consider in picking folks for IESG membership: there needs to be at least one AD on the IESG that is both willing and able to take on this role. That applies to the IAB, but not to the IESG. Brian
RE: Nomcom off in the wilderness: Transport AD
Thanks, Mary. -Original Message- From: Mary Barnes [mailto:mary.ietf.bar...@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 06, 2013 9:40 AM To: Eric Gray Cc: John C Klensin; ietf@ietf.org Subject: Re: Nomcom off in the wilderness: Transport AD Importance: High Eric, You are describing the process of IAB selection as opposed to IESG selection for ensuring there is someone that is a potential chair. The IAB voting members select the IAB chair. The IESG members do not select the IETF chair. Regards, Mary. On Wed, Mar 6, 2013 at 8:29 AM, Eric Gray eric.g...@ericsson.com wrote: John, I considered this before making my reply, especially in light of a number of recent events with which I am intimately familiar. To become the Chair of the IESG involves a second level of selection that is much more political. You have to be selected - I believe - for the role by your peers on the IESG. This then is a matter for the IESG, more than the NomCom, or the IETF as a whole. This is - I feel sure - one of the things that a NomCom has to consider in picking folks for IESG membership: there needs to be at least one AD on the IESG that is both willing and able to take on this role. But - let's face it - this should be obvious to any reasonably competent NomCom that is having to replace an outgoing Chair. But it is most definitely NOT something that every AD has to be prepared to do... -- Eric -Original Message- From: John C Klensin [mailto:john-i...@jck.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 06, 2013 9:22 AM To: Eric Gray Cc: ietf@ietf.org Subject: RE: Nomcom off in the wilderness: Transport AD Importance: High --On Wednesday, March 06, 2013 14:16 + Eric Gray eric.g...@ericsson.com wrote: ... So far, it has not been any part of the normal duties of an IESG member or AD to hold press conferences, glad-handing with the masses, baby kissing, etc. ... I can't speak to baby kissing but the above statement is true only if you exclude the IETF Chair from IESG member or AD. Perhaps we could change it if we really wanted to, but we should face the fact --and I hope that Nomcoms understand-- that the IETF Chair role has expanded to include a great deal of public representation of the IETF and, indeed, public politics. john
RE: Nomcom off in the wilderness: Transport AD
:-) -Original Message- From: Donald Eastlake [mailto:d3e...@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 06, 2013 9:37 AM To: Eric Gray Cc: ietf@ietf.org Subject: Re: Nomcom off in the wilderness: Transport AD Importance: High Eric, As far as I know, that's completely wrong. The IETF Chair, sometimes known as the AD for the General Area, is selected by the nomcom and confirmed by the IAB just like all other ADs. They are not elected chair of the IESG by the IESG members. Thanks, Donald = Donald E. Eastlake 3rd +1-508-333-2270 (cell) 155 Beaver Street, Milford, MA 01757 USA d3e...@gmail.com On Wed, Mar 6, 2013 at 9:29 AM, Eric Gray eric.g...@ericsson.com wrote: John, I considered this before making my reply, especially in light of a number of recent events with which I am intimately familiar. To become the Chair of the IESG involves a second level of selection that is much more political. You have to be selected - I believe - for the role by your peers on the IESG. This then is a matter for the IESG, more than the NomCom, or the IETF as a whole. This is - I feel sure - one of the things that a NomCom has to consider in picking folks for IESG membership: there needs to be at least one AD on the IESG that is both willing and able to take on this role. But - let's face it - this should be obvious to any reasonably competent NomCom that is having to replace an outgoing Chair. But it is most definitely NOT something that every AD has to be prepared to do... -- Eric -Original Message- From: John C Klensin [mailto:john-i...@jck.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 06, 2013 9:22 AM To: Eric Gray Cc: ietf@ietf.org Subject: RE: Nomcom off in the wilderness: Transport AD Importance: High --On Wednesday, March 06, 2013 14:16 + Eric Gray eric.g...@ericsson.com wrote: ... So far, it has not been any part of the normal duties of an IESG member or AD to hold press conferences, glad-handing with the masses, baby kissing, etc. ... I can't speak to baby kissing but the above statement is true only if you exclude the IETF Chair from IESG member or AD. Perhaps we could change it if we really wanted to, but we should face the fact --and I hope that Nomcoms understand-- that the IETF Chair role has expanded to include a great deal of public representation of the IETF and, indeed, public politics. john
Re: Nomcom off in the wilderness: Transport AD
Hi Sam, I think the Nomcom has made the right decision to bring the job requirement discussion to the community. The discussion about the evolution of the Transport Area had also been very insightful to me. I hope you provided your feedback to the Nomcom when they asked for it. Ciao Hannes On Mar 6, 2013, at 2:26 PM, Sam Hartman wrote: I have a huge number of concerns with Russ's message and am frustrated and disappointed when I think about this year's nomcom process. I just sent a message to the nomcom and iab about one of my concerns, and would like to ask you whether you think you should do the same. I specifically ask you not to reply to this message in public and appreciate your respect for the sensitivities involved. To get to this point, some combination of the nomcom and IAB has to have reached the conclusion that we don't have any qualified transport candidates when all aspects of the requirements including available time are considered. I believe based on the information I have available that's a very dubious conclusion and that there are multiple candidates I suspect are qualified to fill the position. I think that the nomcom is sufficiently off-base here that it's worth asking the community to evaluate whether I'm write or not. I wrote a long message to the nomcom and IAB explaining why I thought their conclusion is dead wrong. This is not an appropriate question to debate on the IETf list, and discussing specific candidates is even more inappropriate than debating the general question. However, there is something you can do. Take a quick moment to look at the set of nominees and consider what you know about their qualifications. If you think there are qualified candidates, write to the nomcom; I think you should copy the IAB too, because we don't know where in the process things stopped. If you think that I'm wrong and we don't have qualified candidates it definitely seems wroth dropping the nomcom a note explaining your reasoning. I think this issues is important enough that it's worth your time to look into it especially if you may have information on qualifications.q I'd also appreciate private feedback on how I could improve my approach for raising this concern. I'm not at all sure that sending this message was the best choice, but I feel very strongly that we may have mad a serious error this year, and this is the best I could come up with.
Re: Nomcom off in the wilderness: Transport AD
On 3/6/2013 6:17 AM, Sam Hartman wrote: Dave == Dave Crocker d...@dcrocker.net writes: Dave Candidates could choose to circulate the first part Dave publicly. I think having a public discussion of specific candidates would be undesirable. Just to be clear: I am not suggesting public discussion. I'm suggesting that candidates make their responses available to the community, so the community can have additional information for providing feedback to the Nomcom. By way of anticipating the challenge our community has in restraint from the type of public discussion you cite, I could imagine that the sergeant at arms of the ietf list could declare discussion of specific candidates inappropriate. I actually suspect knowing that can happen is likely to reduce future candidate pools. We went 20 years with this same concern being used as a basis for not making the list of candidates public. It actually hurt Nomcom's work quite a bit, and making the list public has been massively helpful. There needs to be limits to public review, which is why it makes sense for Nomcom deliberations to be private. But there is also a need for appropriate amounts of public accountability. d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net
Re: Nomcom off in the wilderness: Transport AD
On Wed, Mar 6, 2013 at 10:00 AM, Dave Crocker d...@dcrocker.net wrote: On 3/6/2013 6:17 AM, Sam Hartman wrote: Dave == Dave Crocker d...@dcrocker.net writes: Dave Candidates could choose to circulate the first part Dave publicly. I think having a public discussion of specific candidates would be undesirable. Just to be clear: I am not suggesting public discussion. I'm suggesting that candidates make their responses available to the community, so the community can have additional information for providing feedback to the Nomcom. [MB] I think the Nomcom wiki would be a natural place for these questionnaires to be made available. I think that could improve the quality and usefulness of community input. It's hard for folks to remember everything someone has done in a particular area - particularly things that happened 10-12 years back. Very few people are involved in every draft/work item someone progresses, nor are they in all the WG sessions they chair. They may also have forgotten an individual took over critical and conflict ridden working group documents and successfully brought them to completion. When something goes smoothly per the process, the work to do that is often not visible. Many of the individuals that provide input are not aware of all the conflicts and challenges an individual has dealt with. This also gives the community more insight into how the individual would deal with challenges in the area and what the individual sees as challenges. In addition, having this information readily available provides background as to what the individual has accomplished outside IETF. There are IETF participants that are under-utilized in IETF in terms of what they are capable of based upon past accomplishments across a variety of technologies as well as other relevant SDO experiences. I believe this latter point relates to the discussion around whether someone that has shown they can learn new things quickly and is capable of applying skills that have already been developed (in another context) to a new technical context. IMHO, folks that have only IETF or a single technology experience may be less effective overall than folks with broader industry experience. In particular given that some of the discussion around the AD roles is the importance of being able to evaluate work across multiple areas. Based on my experiences with Nomcom, the comments from the community are often actually not that helpful. Despite the request, many of the comments don't provide constructive detail that allows the Nomcom (many who have zero personal or work experience with the nominees) to make decisions with any objectivity. Right now, the process is almost entirely subjective. Not to get too OT to this post, but I'll bring up the fact again, that only a small percentage of the community (including leadership!) actually provide input to the process. It was only around 10% when I chaired nomcom - that's pathetic IMHO. In one sense, I think this suggestion is entirely consistent with how an organization evaluates folks for work positions. Often a hiring manager will ask folks that will be peers to review resumes, interview the individual and provide comments even though they are not the ones to make the final decision. In terms of Nomcom, the voting members are in a similar role as hiring managers and the folks that review the resumes and provide comments are just peers that can provide valuable input to the hiring manager so they get an employee with good qualifications. [/MB] By way of anticipating the challenge our community has in restraint from the type of public discussion you cite, I could imagine that the sergeant at arms of the ietf list could declare discussion of specific candidates inappropriate. [MB] Per my suggestion, this wouldn't be an issue at all. Folks provide the questionnaire to the Nomcom. Of course, the Nomcom may want to reconsider what questions might be public versus nomcom only - just as was done 5 years ago with regards to what information is shared with the confirming bodies. [/MB] I actually suspect knowing that can happen is likely to reduce future candidate pools. We went 20 years with this same concern being used as a basis for not making the list of candidates public. It actually hurt Nomcom's work quite a bit, and making the list public has been massively helpful. [MB] Exactly. [/MB] There needs to be limits to public review, which is why it makes sense for Nomcom deliberations to be private. But there is also a need for appropriate amounts of public accountability. d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net
Re: Nomcom off in the wilderness: Transport AD
On 3/6/13 4:57 AM, Dave Crocker wrote: Candidates could choose to circulate the first part publicly. I'm really, really against turning this into an election-like process just because one nomcom did a bad job (and I agree they did). Melinda
Re: Nomcom off in the wilderness: Transport AD
On 3/6/2013 9:05 AM, Melinda Shore wrote: On 3/6/13 4:57 AM, Dave Crocker wrote: Candidates could choose to circulate the first part publicly. I'm really, really against turning this into an election-like process just because one nomcom did a bad job (and I agree they did). It has always been an election process. Nomcom does the voting. Candidates formulate their questionnaire responses and their Nomcom interviews in a manner to cast themselves in the most appealing light. They've decided they want the job, so they seek to convince Nomcom to choose them. The process is designed to mitigate organized electioneering, attack of other candidates, and the rest of the hype and mayhem that most/all of us detest. And even penalizes candidates who engage in it. So forgive me for indulging in a cliche'd reference, be we are merely haggling price here. Price matters. The methods used by a candidate matter. But in this case, the document already is part of the process. The only change would be in who gets to see it. Arguments against having the community see it are limited to a concern about candidate privacy and a concern that it will engender public commentary about the person. The first doesn't make any sense; what specifically needs to be kept private from the questionnaire response? The second is mitigated by simply prohibiting it. d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net
Re: Nomcom off in the wilderness: Transport AD
Hi, Just to be clear: I am not suggesting public discussion. I'm suggesting that candidates make their responses available to the community, so the community can have additional information for providing feedback to the Nomcom. I agree with Dave on this. I try to give feedback on the NomCom lists of candidates. For people I know, I can do this, for people I don't know well it's difficult. It would help me if I could read some of the material they submitted with their acceptance of the nomination to see why they want the job, and their qualifications and experience. The IETF has grown a lot over the years to the point where most people don't know all of the candidates. Bob
RE: Nomcom off in the wilderness: Transport AD
Bob, This confuses me. Are you saying that you would be more able to give feedback on someone you don't know if you knew what they might have to say about themselves? I would think that - if you don't know somebody - you can't give feedback on them (and that is precisely as it should be). -- Eric -Original Message- From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Bob Hinden Sent: Wednesday, March 06, 2013 2:45 PM To: dcroc...@bbiw.net Cc: Bob Hinden; ietf@ietf.org Subject: Re: Nomcom off in the wilderness: Transport AD Hi, Just to be clear: I am not suggesting public discussion. I'm suggesting that candidates make their responses available to the community, so the community can have additional information for providing feedback to the Nomcom. I agree with Dave on this. I try to give feedback on the NomCom lists of candidates. For people I know, I can do this, for people I don't know well it's difficult. It would help me if I could read some of the material they submitted with their acceptance of the nomination to see why they want the job, and their qualifications and experience. The IETF has grown a lot over the years to the point where most people don't know all of the candidates. Bob
Re: Nomcom off in the wilderness: Transport AD
Sam, Thanks for raising this issue. The issue about what kind of candidates are suitable for the task. However, even if you asked us to not reply to your mail on the public list, I wanted to do it for one aspect. I have a suggestion that relates to who you are directing your criticism to. You've been a part of the nomination process, you know it is not easy. When it comes to feedback on candidates and the tasks, noncom does need your feedback. Please tell them what you think. But when it comes to the off in the wilderness part, I have a very strong opinion. Please do not take it out on the noncom, confirming bodies, or the process. I think the buck stops in this particular situation with the IESG, whose requirements they are following. Just like when the spec is wrong, you do not blame the vendor. And yes, we at the IESG do see this as a serious situation. And we have taken steps to explain the situation to the community, arrange an opportunity to discuss what we should do, and, I believe, eventually we will revise the requirements and let the nomination process complete. I actually believe bringing the issue up to the community is a good thing, rather than having the noncom, the IESG, or the confirming bodies just making a decision without telling you about the circumstances. We are obviously open to feedback on how all this should be done, particularly when this is a new situation for all of us. But I just wanted to say that if you have criticism on the overall situation, the right place to send feedback is the IESG. You can start with me, I am committed to resolving this somehow. I need all my team members in place :-) Thanks, Jari
Re: Nomcom off in the wilderness: Transport AD
--On Wednesday, March 06, 2013 09:35 -0800 Dave Crocker d...@dcrocker.net wrote: ... It has always been an election process. Nomcom does the voting. Candidates formulate their questionnaire responses and their Nomcom interviews in a manner to cast themselves in the most appealing light. They've decided they want the job, so they seek to convince Nomcom to choose them. I believe it is still possible to have a candidate who is willing to take a position out of a sense of obligation to the community rather than wanting the job. Such a candidate might include information, including reflections on the position and possible other candidates, in a questionnaire that should absolutely not be made public. Pushing candidates in directions that either require questionnaire disclosure or that cause the community to wonder why a particular candidate would not disclose discourages such willing but don't actually want the job candidacies in the future. I suggest that is not in the interest of the community, YMMD. Less likely, but still possible, a candidate may disclose (presumably with permission based on the Nomcom's confidentiality obligations when needed) truly confidential material such as future job prospects or even plans within the organization for which he or she currently works. Again, if the candidate can't be assured that information will be kept confidential, with no pressure to disclose, we essentially discourage candidates who have information of that type that then cannot be revealed to the Nomcom. I suggest that is is not in the interest of the community to discourage candidates in that sort of position either. Again, YMMD. ... Arguments against having the community see it are limited to a concern about candidate privacy and a concern that it will engender public commentary about the person. The first doesn't make any sense; what specifically needs to be kept private from the questionnaire response? Candidate privacy in the examples I've given above may extend to organizational privacy or issues that could jeopardize the candidate's job. To put something Sam (I think) said in a slightly different light, we can made the process of being a candidate (and giving the Nomcom whatever information it might want or need) sufficiently unpleasant that the only people who will offer their names are those who really, really, want the jobs, perhaps because possessing one of those seats would be a good industry move for their companies. Maybe eliminating candidacies from those who would be qualified and willing to do the jobs but who dislike the public disrobing, or eliminating anyone whose companies are willing to support them in IETF leadership roles but don't see corporate advantage in having them in those positions, would be an acceptable tradeoff against disclosure of questionnaires, job details, etc. I just don't happen to think so, but I gather that you disagree. The second is mitigated by simply prohibiting it. That prohibition will work because there has never been a whispering campaign in the IETF. Never. john
RE: Nomcom off in the wilderness: Transport AD
Eric, This was exactly the point I made earlier in an email to Dave Crocker. Irrespectively Yours, John -Original Message- From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Eric Gray Sent: Wednesday, March 06, 2013 12:59 PM To: Bob Hinden; dcroc...@bbiw.net Cc: ietf@ietf.org Subject: RE: Nomcom off in the wilderness: Transport AD Bob, This confuses me. Are you saying that you would be more able to give feedback on someone you don't know if you knew what they might have to say about themselves? I would think that - if you don't know somebody - you can't give feedback on them (and that is precisely as it should be). -- Eric -Original Message- From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Bob Hinden Sent: Wednesday, March 06, 2013 2:45 PM To: dcroc...@bbiw.net Cc: Bob Hinden; ietf@ietf.org Subject: Re: Nomcom off in the wilderness: Transport AD Hi, Just to be clear: I am not suggesting public discussion. I'm suggesting that candidates make their responses available to the community, so the community can have additional information for providing feedback to the Nomcom. I agree with Dave on this. I try to give feedback on the NomCom lists of candidates. For people I know, I can do this, for people I don't know well it's difficult. It would help me if I could read some of the material they submitted with their acceptance of the nomination to see why they want the job, and their qualifications and experience. The IETF has grown a lot over the years to the point where most people don't know all of the candidates. Bob
Re: Nomcom off in the wilderness: Transport AD
Eric, On Wed, Mar 6, 2013 at 2:59 PM, Eric Gray eric.g...@ericsson.com wrote: Bob, This confuses me. Are you saying that you would be more able to give feedback on someone you don't know if you knew what they might have to say about themselves? I would think that - if you don't know somebody - you can't give feedback on them (and that is precisely as it should be). [MB] This then begs the question in my opinion as to how Nomcom can evaluate nominees from the questionnaires then? Also, As I noted in my previous response, even when you know someone you likely don't know everything about what they have accomplished or you have forgotten some things. [/MB] -- Eric -Original Message- From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Bob Hinden Sent: Wednesday, March 06, 2013 2:45 PM To: dcroc...@bbiw.net Cc: Bob Hinden; ietf@ietf.org Subject: Re: Nomcom off in the wilderness: Transport AD Hi, Just to be clear: I am not suggesting public discussion. I'm suggesting that candidates make their responses available to the community, so the community can have additional information for providing feedback to the Nomcom. I agree with Dave on this. I try to give feedback on the NomCom lists of candidates. For people I know, I can do this, for people I don't know well it's difficult. It would help me if I could read some of the material they submitted with their acceptance of the nomination to see why they want the job, and their qualifications and experience. The IETF has grown a lot over the years to the point where most people don't know all of the candidates. Bob
RE: Nomcom off in the wilderness: Transport AD
Mary, There's a difference between evaluating someone based on what they said (as you point out is part of the NomCom's job) and evaluating someone based on what somebody else said about what they said. If - in the latter case - someone offering feedback based strictly on what a candidate had to say about themselves was completely up-front about that, then the NomCom could try to factor that in when considering the feedback. I don't think that it is a good idea to try to rely on people to do this, nor do I think it is completely obvious how someone on the NomCom could necessarily arrive at a really good way to factor that in. Your second point is certainly valid. There is no doubt that a personal CV from each candidate would help everyone. So maybe we're just quibbling over exactly what sorts of candidate responses it would be helpful to disclose. :-) -- Eric -Original Message- From: Mary Barnes [mailto:mary.ietf.bar...@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 06, 2013 4:22 PM To: Eric Gray Cc: Bob Hinden; dcroc...@bbiw.net; ietf@ietf.org Subject: Re: Nomcom off in the wilderness: Transport AD Importance: High Eric, On Wed, Mar 6, 2013 at 2:59 PM, Eric Gray eric.g...@ericsson.com wrote: Bob, This confuses me. Are you saying that you would be more able to give feedback on someone you don't know if you knew what they might have to say about themselves? I would think that - if you don't know somebody - you can't give feedback on them (and that is precisely as it should be). [MB] This then begs the question in my opinion as to how Nomcom can evaluate nominees from the questionnaires then? Also, As I noted in my previous response, even when you know someone you likely don't know everything about what they have accomplished or you have forgotten some things. [/MB] -- Eric -Original Message- From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Bob Hinden Sent: Wednesday, March 06, 2013 2:45 PM To: dcroc...@bbiw.net Cc: Bob Hinden; ietf@ietf.org Subject: Re: Nomcom off in the wilderness: Transport AD Hi, Just to be clear: I am not suggesting public discussion. I'm suggesting that candidates make their responses available to the community, so the community can have additional information for providing feedback to the Nomcom. I agree with Dave on this. I try to give feedback on the NomCom lists of candidates. For people I know, I can do this, for people I don't know well it's difficult. It would help me if I could read some of the material they submitted with their acceptance of the nomination to see why they want the job, and their qualifications and experience. The IETF has grown a lot over the years to the point where most people don't know all of the candidates. Bob
RE: Nomcom off in the wilderness: Transport AD
Mary, As a potential nominee I considered the questionnaire to be a barrier to entry and as a NomCom member I considered the questionnaire answers to be useless. Irrespectively Yours, John -Original Message- From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Mary Barnes Sent: Wednesday, March 06, 2013 1:22 PM To: Eric Gray Cc: Bob Hinden; dcroc...@bbiw.net; ietf@ietf.org Subject: Re: Nomcom off in the wilderness: Transport AD Eric, On Wed, Mar 6, 2013 at 2:59 PM, Eric Gray eric.g...@ericsson.com wrote: Bob, This confuses me. Are you saying that you would be more able to give feedback on someone you don't know if you knew what they might have to say about themselves? I would think that - if you don't know somebody - you can't give feedback on them (and that is precisely as it should be). [MB] This then begs the question in my opinion as to how Nomcom can evaluate nominees from the questionnaires then? Also, As I noted in my previous response, even when you know someone you likely don't know everything about what they have accomplished or you have forgotten some things. [/MB] -- Eric -Original Message- From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Bob Hinden Sent: Wednesday, March 06, 2013 2:45 PM To: dcroc...@bbiw.net Cc: Bob Hinden; ietf@ietf.org Subject: Re: Nomcom off in the wilderness: Transport AD Hi, Just to be clear: I am not suggesting public discussion. I'm suggesting that candidates make their responses available to the community, so the community can have additional information for providing feedback to the Nomcom. I agree with Dave on this. I try to give feedback on the NomCom lists of candidates. For people I know, I can do this, for people I don't know well it's difficult. It would help me if I could read some of the material they submitted with their acceptance of the nomination to see why they want the job, and their qualifications and experience. The IETF has grown a lot over the years to the point where most people don't know all of the candidates. Bob
Re: Nomcom off in the wilderness: Transport AD
Eric, On Mar 6, 2013, at 12:59 PM, Eric Gray wrote: Bob, This confuses me. Are you saying that you would be more able to give feedback on someone you don't know if you knew what they might have to say about themselves? I would think that - if you don't know somebody - you can't give feedback on them (and that is precisely as it should be). If I don't recognize them by name (and we don't publish their pictures), I might remember something they did in a working group/plenary/etc. by reading their summary. Also, if they make statements about the future of the IETF that I agree with or don't agree with, I can provide feedback on that. Bob
RE: Nomcom off in the wilderness: Transport AD
Okay, thanks Bob. This makes sense... -Original Message- From: Bob Hinden [mailto:bob.hin...@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 06, 2013 4:36 PM To: Eric Gray Cc: Bob Hinden; dcroc...@bbiw.net; ietf@ietf.org Subject: Re: Nomcom off in the wilderness: Transport AD Importance: High Eric, On Mar 6, 2013, at 12:59 PM, Eric Gray wrote: Bob, This confuses me. Are you saying that you would be more able to give feedback on someone you don't know if you knew what they might have to say about themselves? I would think that - if you don't know somebody - you can't give feedback on them (and that is precisely as it should be). If I don't recognize them by name (and we don't publish their pictures), I might remember something they did in a working group/plenary/etc. by reading their summary. Also, if they make statements about the future of the IETF that I agree with or don't agree with, I can provide feedback on that. Bob
Re: Nomcom off in the wilderness: Transport AD
On Wed, Mar 6, 2013 at 3:31 PM, Eric Gray eric.g...@ericsson.com wrote: Mary, There's a difference between evaluating someone based on what they said (as you point out is part of the NomCom's job) and evaluating someone based on what somebody else said about what they said. If - in the latter case - someone offering feedback based strictly on what a candidate had to say about themselves was completely up-front about that, then the NomCom could try to factor that in when considering the feedback. I don't think that it is a good idea to try to rely on people to do this, nor do I think it is completely obvious how someone on the NomCom could necessarily arrive at a really good way to factor that in. [MB] Honestly, as it is now, the context for feedback is often totally unknown to the Nomcom. I can't see that someone offering feedback based on public input from the nominee is any less credible that the information that Nomcom gets now. My point is that nominees providing this information makes it easier for someone providing input to provide concrete context and adequate detail to add value to the process. Folks do not remember everything that a person has done. They usually only remember the most recent things. The process is quite flawed IMHO right now in terms of the quality and quantity of input that nomcom must rely on to make their decisions. [/MB] Your second point is certainly valid. There is no doubt that a personal CV from each candidate would help everyone. So maybe we're just quibbling over exactly what sorts of candidate responses it would be helpful to disclose. [MB] Take a look at the position questionnaires: https://www.ietf.org/group/nomcom/2012/iesg-questionnaire If I were to post my responses that I provided to this year's nomcom, I would only need to make some minor changes in terms of anonymizing and abstracting a few of my comments. We can decide where to draw the line in terms of what sections to provide, as well. If anyone does have lots of concerns about this, it would make me wonder exactly how they are positioning themselves to the nomcom. [/MB] :-) -- Eric -Original Message- From: Mary Barnes [mailto:mary.ietf.bar...@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 06, 2013 4:22 PM To: Eric Gray Cc: Bob Hinden; dcroc...@bbiw.net; ietf@ietf.org Subject: Re: Nomcom off in the wilderness: Transport AD Importance: High Eric, On Wed, Mar 6, 2013 at 2:59 PM, Eric Gray eric.g...@ericsson.com wrote: Bob, This confuses me. Are you saying that you would be more able to give feedback on someone you don't know if you knew what they might have to say about themselves? I would think that - if you don't know somebody - you can't give feedback on them (and that is precisely as it should be). [MB] This then begs the question in my opinion as to how Nomcom can evaluate nominees from the questionnaires then? Also, As I noted in my previous response, even when you know someone you likely don't know everything about what they have accomplished or you have forgotten some things. [/MB] -- Eric -Original Message- From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Bob Hinden Sent: Wednesday, March 06, 2013 2:45 PM To: dcroc...@bbiw.net Cc: Bob Hinden; ietf@ietf.org Subject: Re: Nomcom off in the wilderness: Transport AD Hi, Just to be clear: I am not suggesting public discussion. I'm suggesting that candidates make their responses available to the community, so the community can have additional information for providing feedback to the Nomcom. I agree with Dave on this. I try to give feedback on the NomCom lists of candidates. For people I know, I can do this, for people I don't know well it's difficult. It would help me if I could read some of the material they submitted with their acceptance of the nomination to see why they want the job, and their qualifications and experience. The IETF has grown a lot over the years to the point where most people don't know all of the candidates. Bob
Re: Nomcom off in the wilderness: Transport AD
For what it's worth, candidates in professional organizations (IEEE, ACM, say) routinely publish basic information about themselves, typically of two kinds: * what have they done before (both within the organization as well as other roles) * vision for their position and the organization itself Both are typically space-limited (around 200 words, I think) to force focus and to avoid making this a who can write a nicer autobiography contest. This is not sufficient and doesn't replace personal knowledge or one-on-one interviews, but allows a broader range of people to comment. IEEE and ACM have member votes, so the need is a bit different, but I don't think this is that unusual nor particularly burdensome. Henning On Mar 6, 2013, at 4:37 PM, Eric Gray wrote: Okay, thanks Bob. This makes sense... -Original Message- From: Bob Hinden [mailto:bob.hin...@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 06, 2013 4:36 PM To: Eric Gray Cc: Bob Hinden; dcroc...@bbiw.net; ietf@ietf.org Subject: Re: Nomcom off in the wilderness: Transport AD Importance: High Eric, On Mar 6, 2013, at 12:59 PM, Eric Gray wrote: Bob, This confuses me. Are you saying that you would be more able to give feedback on someone you don't know if you knew what they might have to say about themselves? I would think that - if you don't know somebody - you can't give feedback on them (and that is precisely as it should be). If I don't recognize them by name (and we don't publish their pictures), I might remember something they did in a working group/plenary/etc. by reading their summary. Also, if they make statements about the future of the IETF that I agree with or don't agree with, I can provide feedback on that. Bob
RE: Nomcom off in the wilderness: Transport AD
Henning, This is essentially what I meant in agree with Mary about including a personal CV. However, even in the ACM/IEEE cases, there is a pronounced tendency to go with the better write-up than with necessarily the best candidate. That's because practically nobody actually knows the candidates. Also, the positions where this is done are not usually the sort of position that is likely to impact on the day-to-day job of the ACM/IEEE membership, even over the long term - to the extent the effectiveness of an IESG candidate might. Still, on the whole, I agree that this sort of write up would be more helpful than not. -- Eric -Original Message- From: Henning Schulzrinne [mailto:h...@cs.columbia.edu] Sent: Wednesday, March 06, 2013 4:45 PM To: Eric Gray Cc: Bob Hinden; dcroc...@bbiw.net; ietf@ietf.org Subject: Re: Nomcom off in the wilderness: Transport AD Importance: High For what it's worth, candidates in professional organizations (IEEE, ACM, say) routinely publish basic information about themselves, typically of two kinds: * what have they done before (both within the organization as well as other roles) * vision for their position and the organization itself Both are typically space-limited (around 200 words, I think) to force focus and to avoid making this a who can write a nicer autobiography contest. This is not sufficient and doesn't replace personal knowledge or one-on-one interviews, but allows a broader range of people to comment. IEEE and ACM have member votes, so the need is a bit different, but I don't think this is that unusual nor particularly burdensome. Henning On Mar 6, 2013, at 4:37 PM, Eric Gray wrote: Okay, thanks Bob. This makes sense... -Original Message- From: Bob Hinden [mailto:bob.hin...@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 06, 2013 4:36 PM To: Eric Gray Cc: Bob Hinden; dcroc...@bbiw.net; ietf@ietf.org Subject: Re: Nomcom off in the wilderness: Transport AD Importance: High Eric, On Mar 6, 2013, at 12:59 PM, Eric Gray wrote: Bob, This confuses me. Are you saying that you would be more able to give feedback on someone you don't know if you knew what they might have to say about themselves? I would think that - if you don't know somebody - you can't give feedback on them (and that is precisely as it should be). If I don't recognize them by name (and we don't publish their pictures), I might remember something they did in a working group/plenary/etc. by reading their summary. Also, if they make statements about the future of the IETF that I agree with or don't agree with, I can provide feedback on that. Bob
Re: Nomcom off in the wilderness: Transport AD
On 03/06/2013 05:05 PM, Melinda Shore wrote: On 3/6/13 4:57 AM, Dave Crocker wrote: Candidates could choose to circulate the first part publicly. I'm really, really against turning this into an election-like process Speaking as someone who's filled in these things and both been selected and not, but never been on nomcom, I'd be against making 'em public, so +1 to Melinda and others on that. I think that'd lead to less honest/open answers as has been pointed out. One example of that not noted so far is that I've in the past told nomcom pick the incumbent if he's re-upping and I think publishing responses would likely mean this would either never be said or always be said and neither's as good as it being said in private IMO. That's just an example, I agree with pretty much all the reasons folks have stated for not publishing these responses. S.
Re: Nomcom off in the wilderness: Transport AD
On 3/6/2013 3:11 PM, John C Klensin wrote: On this specific point ... Less likely, but still possible, a candidate may disclose (presumably with permission based on the Nomcom's confidentiality obligations when needed) truly confidential material such as future job prospects or even plans within the organization for which he or she currently works. Again, if the candidate can't be assured that information will be kept confidential, with no pressure to disclose, we essentially discourage candidates who have information of that type that then cannot be revealed to the Nomcom. I've seen at least one Nomcom questionnaire that fell into this category, so I's suggest that John's point is worth keeping in mind. Spencer
Re: Nomcom off in the wilderness: Transport AD
On Wed, Mar 6, 2013 at 4:01 PM, Spencer Dawkins spen...@wonderhamster.org wrote: On 3/6/2013 3:11 PM, John C Klensin wrote: On this specific point ... Less likely, but still possible, a candidate may disclose (presumably with permission based on the Nomcom's confidentiality obligations when needed) truly confidential material such as future job prospects or even plans within the organization for which he or she currently works. Again, if the candidate can't be assured that information will be kept confidential, with no pressure to disclose, we essentially discourage candidates who have information of that type that then cannot be revealed to the Nomcom. I've seen at least one Nomcom questionnaire that fell into this category, so I's suggest that John's point is worth keeping in mind. [MB] I think that we can evaluate the questionnaires and decide how much of what is currently provided to Nomcom needs to be public. Just as there is a section where nominees can include information that doesn't get shared with IAB, they could certainly do so with information they don't want shared with the community. And, again, my suggestion was that this information only be available on the Nomcom wiki as is the public list of nominees, as opposed to publishing on an open website or mailing list. [/MB] Spencer
Re: Nomcom off in the wilderness: Transport AD
On Wed, Mar 6, 2013 at 4:01 PM, Spencer Dawkins spen...@wonderhamster.org wrote: On 3/6/2013 3:11 PM, John C Klensin wrote: On this specific point ... Less likely, but still possible, a candidate may disclose (presumably with permission based on the Nomcom's confidentiality obligations when needed) truly confidential material such as future job prospects or even plans within the organization for which he or she currently works. Again, if the candidate can't be assured that information will be kept confidential, with no pressure to disclose, we essentially discourage candidates who have information of that type that then cannot be revealed to the Nomcom. I've seen at least one Nomcom questionnaire that fell into this category, so I's suggest that John's point is worth keeping in mind. [MB] I think that we can evaluate the questionnaires and decide how much of what is currently provided to Nomcom needs to be public. Just as there is a section where nominees can include information that doesn't get shared with IAB, they could certainly do so with information they don't want shared with the community. And, again, my suggestion was that this information only be available on the Nomcom wiki as is the public list of nominees, as opposed to publishing on an open website or mailing list. [/MB] Spencer
Re: Nomcom off in the wilderness: Transport AD
On Wed, Mar 6, 2013 at 3:57 PM, Stephen Farrell stephen.farr...@cs.tcd.ie wrote: On 03/06/2013 05:05 PM, Melinda Shore wrote: On 3/6/13 4:57 AM, Dave Crocker wrote: Candidates could choose to circulate the first part publicly. I'm really, really against turning this into an election-like process Speaking as someone who's filled in these things and both been selected and not, but never been on nomcom, I'd be against making 'em public, so +1 to Melinda and others on that. I think that'd lead to less honest/open answers as has been pointed out. One example of that not noted so far is that I've in the past told nomcom pick the incumbent if he's re-upping and I think publishing responses would likely mean this would either never be said or always be said and neither's as good as it being said in private IMO. [MB] As someone whose filled out these things way more times than I want to admit and never been appointed, but who has chaired nomcom, I think making the questionnaires (at least a portion thereof) would add value to the process. Personally, I would question the motives of someone that didn't think at least a portion of the questionnaire could be shared with the community. I took a quick look at the questionnaire I filled out for this year's nomcom and there's only a couple comments way down in the questionnaire that I would need to edit to feel comfortable with making the questionnaire available to the community - I would need to generalize some things with specific details. The questionnaire is not the only way one should be providing input to the Nomcom, and one could certainly include the comment you mention in a portion of the questionnaire that wouldn't get published or send them an email. [/MB] That's just an example, I agree with pretty much all the reasons folks have stated for not publishing these responses. S.
