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 PR
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.
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
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
= 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
= 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
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/
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
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
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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,
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
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
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
--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
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
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
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
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
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,
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.
...
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
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
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
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
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
60 matches
Mail list logo
