From spencer@wonderhamster.org Fri Feb 20 07:43:59 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietf-nomcom@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietf-nomcom@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BBA9A28C24C for ; Fri, 20 Feb 2009 07:43:59 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.019 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.019 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.280, BAYES_20=-0.74, STOX_REPLY_TYPE=0.001] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 2JWUhLZYwhuO for ; Fri, 20 Feb 2009 07:43:59 -0800 (PST) Received: from mout.perfora.net (mout.perfora.net [74.208.4.195]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 114F628C217 for ; Fri, 20 Feb 2009 07:43:56 -0800 (PST) Received: from S73602b (cpe-72-190-78-151.tx.res.rr.com [72.190.78.151]) by mrelay.perfora.net (node=mrus0) with ESMTP (Nemesis) id 0MKp8S-1LaXXt1Wql-000NXX; Fri, 20 Feb 2009 10:44:10 -0500 Message-ID: <54252B42635B41C69D37F4553E9E4361@china.huawei.com> From: "Spencer Dawkins" To: "NomComDiscussion" References: <489D1EBB.719E0EB0@ix.netcom.com> Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2009 09:43:53 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; reply-type=original Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.5512 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.5579 X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX1+69JJXe1vHUwuHaG0rA5q8TXJ/Ia3c5eGnM02 rVKIBYV2lY7euB5ah7eXlZ7YpppXznJDkx2OOIWmHJma7GJ6g5 A0vD3oPiGYJ+GLcZKmnA/WkWPEeUFZ9r1hlXT+axbE= Subject: [ietf-nomcom] Two (small) I-Ds now available for discussion X-BeenThere: ietf-nomcom@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions of possible revisions to the NomCom process List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2009 15:43:59 -0000 At Russ's request, I wrote a short draft suggesting that the Past NomCom Chair issue the announcement of positions being reviewed and the call for volunteers. This draft is available at http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-dawkins-nomcom-dont-wait-00.txt. Also at Russ's request, I wrote a short draft suggesting that NomComs be able to announce lists of willing candidates to the entire community in order to get feedback on these candidates. This draft is available at http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-dawkins-nomcom-openlist-00.txt. Please fire at will, of course. Thanks, Spencer From danny@arbor.net Fri Feb 20 07:47:56 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietf-nomcom@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietf-nomcom@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 09ED23A6B77 for ; Fri, 20 Feb 2009 07:47:56 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 2w6+Ee440S87 for ; Fri, 20 Feb 2009 07:47:55 -0800 (PST) Received: from dog.tcb.net (dog.tcb.net [64.78.150.133]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 517A23A6B0F for ; Fri, 20 Feb 2009 07:47:55 -0800 (PST) Received: by dog.tcb.net (Postfix, from userid 0) id E6AA12684EA; Fri, 20 Feb 2009 08:48:09 -0700 (MST) Received: from jchouinard-sim-103.eng.ellacoya.com (97-122-99-176.hlrn.qwest.net [97.122.99.176]) (authenticated-user danny) (TLSv1/SSLv3 AES128-SHA 128/128) by dog.tcb.net with SMTP; Fri, 20 Feb 2009 08:48:09 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from danny@arbor.net) X-Avenger: version=0.7.8; receiver=dog.tcb.net; client-ip=97.122.99.176; client-port=57257; syn-fingerprint=65535:55:1:64:M1408,N,W3,N,N,T,S; data-bytes=0 From: Danny McPherson To: Spencer Dawkins In-Reply-To: <54252B42635B41C69D37F4553E9E4361@china.huawei.com> X-Priority: 3 References: <489D1EBB.719E0EB0@ix.netcom.com> <54252B42635B41C69D37F4553E9E4361@china.huawei.com> Message-Id: <4F72EF62-F77B-4AF2-B8F7-C273B38ED3B1@arbor.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v930.3) Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2009 08:48:08 -0700 X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.930.3) Cc: NomComDiscussion Subject: Re: [ietf-nomcom] Two (small) I-Ds now available for discussion X-BeenThere: ietf-nomcom@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions of possible revisions to the NomCom process List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2009 15:47:56 -0000 On Feb 20, 2009, at 8:43 AM, Spencer Dawkins wrote: > At Russ's request, I wrote a short draft suggesting that the Past > NomCom Chair issue the announcement of positions being reviewed and > the call for volunteers. This draft is available at http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-dawkins-nomcom-dont-wait-00.txt > . > > Also at Russ's request, I wrote a short draft suggesting that > NomComs be able to announce lists of willing candidates to the > entire community in order to get feedback on these candidates. This > draft is available at http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-dawkins-nomcom-openlist-00.txt > . > > Please fire at will, of course. I'd be quite keen on seeing both these updates adopted into the process. -danny From jmh@joelhalpern.com Fri Feb 20 07:57:01 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietf-nomcom@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietf-nomcom@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 007FA3A6B5D for ; Fri, 20 Feb 2009 07:57:01 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.867 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.867 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.560, BAYES_00=-2.599, MISSING_HEADERS=1.292, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id L1Qm7V-+3EEK for ; Fri, 20 Feb 2009 07:57:00 -0800 (PST) Received: from hermes.mail.tigertech.net (hermes.mail.tigertech.net [64.62.209.72]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5D10E3A6AC6 for ; Fri, 20 Feb 2009 07:57:00 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hermes.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4697443A84C for ; Fri, 20 Feb 2009 07:57:15 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at hermes.tigertech.net Received: from [10.10.10.100] (pool-71-161-50-192.clppva.btas.verizon.net [71.161.50.192]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by hermes.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id C50B343A81A for ; Fri, 20 Feb 2009 07:57:14 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <499ED2D4.3000503@joelhalpern.com> Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2009 10:57:08 -0500 From: "Joel M. Halpern" User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.19 (Windows/20081209) MIME-Version: 1.0 CC: NomComDiscussion References: <489D1EBB.719E0EB0@ix.netcom.com> <54252B42635B41C69D37F4553E9E4361@china.huawei.com> <4F72EF62-F77B-4AF2-B8F7-C273B38ED3B1@arbor.net> In-Reply-To: <4F72EF62-F77B-4AF2-B8F7-C273B38ED3B1@arbor.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [ietf-nomcom] Two (small) I-Ds now available for discussion X-BeenThere: ietf-nomcom@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions of possible revisions to the NomCom process List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2009 15:57:01 -0000 In particular, while getting the nomcom volunteers available earlier is a good thing, getting permission to make the list of willing candidates public is a VERY good idea. It would resolve multiple issues. How do we make something happen? Thank you, Joel Danny McPherson wrote: > > On Feb 20, 2009, at 8:43 AM, Spencer Dawkins wrote: > >> At Russ's request, I wrote a short draft suggesting that the Past >> NomCom Chair issue the announcement of positions being reviewed and >> the call for volunteers. This draft is available at >> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-dawkins-nomcom-dont-wait-00.txt. >> >> >> Also at Russ's request, I wrote a short draft suggesting that NomComs >> be able to announce lists of willing candidates to the entire >> community in order to get feedback on these candidates. This draft is >> available at >> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-dawkins-nomcom-openlist-00.txt. >> >> Please fire at will, of course. > > I'd be quite keen on seeing both these updates adopted > into the process. > > -danny > _______________________________________________ > ietf-nomcom mailing list > ietf-nomcom@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-nomcom > From jmh@joelhalpern.com Fri Feb 20 08:01:44 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietf-nomcom@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietf-nomcom@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id ED4CB3A6A6B for ; Fri, 20 Feb 2009 08:01:44 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.497 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.497 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.102, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Q3wpmf1UfFAN for ; Fri, 20 Feb 2009 08:01:44 -0800 (PST) Received: from hermes.mail.tigertech.net (hermes.mail.tigertech.net [64.62.209.72]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 50C843A6959 for ; Fri, 20 Feb 2009 08:01:44 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hermes.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4724F43A8A6 for ; Fri, 20 Feb 2009 08:01:59 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at hermes.tigertech.net Received: from [10.10.10.100] (pool-71-161-50-192.clppva.btas.verizon.net [71.161.50.192]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by hermes.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9B74243A8A3 for ; Fri, 20 Feb 2009 08:01:58 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <499ED3EF.1070001@joelhalpern.com> Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2009 11:01:51 -0500 From: "Joel M. Halpern" User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.19 (Windows/20081209) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: NomComDiscussion References: <489D1EBB.719E0EB0@ix.netcom.com> <54252B42635B41C69D37F4553E9E4361@china.huawei.com> In-Reply-To: <54252B42635B41C69D37F4553E9E4361@china.huawei.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [ietf-nomcom] Two (small) I-Ds now available for discussion X-BeenThere: ietf-nomcom@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions of possible revisions to the NomCom process List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2009 16:01:45 -0000 The text as written addresses part of the process. It is not clear to me whether it is intended to also accellerate the rest of the process. If, by the end of the volunteer solicitation time frame, there is not a new nomcom chair, should the past chair continue with the: Posting of the list for challenges Drawing of nomcom members posting of selected nomcom members for challenges? Also, there are two things called for in the process that need to occur almost as soon as the call for volunteers: 1) The stating of a timeline for the selection process 2) The defining of the random seeds for the selection process Is it indended that the past chair perform those two functions (and stick the new chair with acting on that?) I do see value in this acceleration. But we need to get the details right. Yours, Joel Spencer Dawkins wrote: > At Russ's request, I wrote a short draft suggesting that the Past NomCom > Chair issue the announcement of positions being reviewed and the call > for volunteers. This draft is available at > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-dawkins-nomcom-dont-wait-00.txt. From spencer@wonderhamster.org Fri Feb 20 08:42:52 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietf-nomcom@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietf-nomcom@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 57ABA28C215 for ; Fri, 20 Feb 2009 08:42:52 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.856 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.856 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.744, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id fhj+ouSEH1tt for ; Fri, 20 Feb 2009 08:42:51 -0800 (PST) Received: from mout.perfora.net (mout.perfora.net [74.208.4.195]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7237028C20A for ; Fri, 20 Feb 2009 08:42:51 -0800 (PST) Received: from S73602b (cpe-72-190-78-151.tx.res.rr.com [72.190.78.151]) by mrelay.perfora.net (node=mrus1) with ESMTP (Nemesis) id 0MKpCa-1LaYSq2oHT-00014G; Fri, 20 Feb 2009 11:43:02 -0500 Message-ID: From: "Spencer Dawkins" To: "Joel M. Halpern" , "NomComDiscussion" References: <489D1EBB.719E0EB0@ix.netcom.com><54252B42635B41C69D37F4553E9E4361@china.huawei.com> <499ED3EF.1070001@joelhalpern.com> Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2009 10:42:43 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; reply-type=response Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.5512 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.5579 X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX1+HR/j/c/pqUFlbSdTNZzp9A4S1JdaMtkVLUgO uqlpbdt3yyqXvElqiQtzyCDiE4KOG4gFoT1+CQPiJlxj++4C68 m3HrdRhWGI23a4nIuWi9Mz9s1zbdE+lfnr9E+Z1Le8= Subject: Re: [ietf-nomcom] Two (small) I-Ds now available for discussion X-BeenThere: ietf-nomcom@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions of possible revisions to the NomCom process List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2009 16:42:52 -0000 Hi, Joel, Thanks for quick and encouraging feedback. Agree that we need to get the details right. The draft currently says: 3. Discussion ... This process change covers only the announcement of open positions and the solicitation for names of volunteers. The announcement of the pool of volunteers and the source of randomness used to select voting volunteers is still the responsibility of the current Chair. The goal of this process change is not to allow a NomCom to proceed without a current Chair, it is only to ensure that a current Chair can begin organizing the NomCom without an avoidable delay, and can use face-to-face time at the Second IETF meeting effectively for this purpose. My first goal with this draft was removing a 30-day serialization delay (under RFC 3777, everything is full stop until the NomCom chair is announced). My take on recent NomComs was that they tended to announce randomization seeds later than they called for volunteers, but it would be fine with me if the Past NomCom Chair was also tasked with that. (At the risk of repeating myself for others) I've never served on a NomCom and am delighted to be guided by people who have, but I thought that establishing a timeline was starting to encroach on the NomCom Chair's duties that would be awkward to delegate - what do other people (especially past NomCom chairs, who have actually done this before) think? Thanks, Spencer > The text as written addresses part of the process. It is not clear to me > whether it is intended to also accellerate the rest of the process. > > If, by the end of the volunteer solicitation time frame, there is not a > new nomcom chair, should the past chair continue with the: > Posting of the list for challenges > Drawing of nomcom members > posting of selected nomcom members for challenges? > > Also, there are two things called for in the process that need to occur > almost as soon as the call for volunteers: > 1) The stating of a timeline for the selection process > 2) The defining of the random seeds for the selection process > Is it indended that the past chair perform those two functions (and stick > the new chair with acting on that?) > > I do see value in this acceleration. But we need to get the details > right. > > Yours, > Joel From galvin+ietf-nomcom@elistx.com Fri Feb 20 08:44:06 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietf-nomcom@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietf-nomcom@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9337828C20A for ; Fri, 20 Feb 2009 08:44:06 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.265 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.265 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, IP_NOT_FRIENDLY=0.334, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id wBjxgVbNBAlg for ; Fri, 20 Feb 2009 08:44:05 -0800 (PST) Received: from ee01.elistx.com (ee01.elistx.com [67.154.239.222]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7DFC028C146 for ; Fri, 20 Feb 2009 08:44:05 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by elistx.com (PMDF V6.3-2x2 #31546) with ESMTP id <0KFD0063SIFNYE@elistx.com> for ietf-nomcom@ietf.org; Fri, 20 Feb 2009 11:42:59 -0500 (EST) Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2009 11:45:11 -0500 From: James Galvin To: NomComDiscussion Message-id: <9A79F9B5EBACD319755D40A0@eList-eXpress-LLC.local> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Mulberry/4.0.8 (Mac OS X) Content-type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=us-ascii Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Content-disposition: inline Subject: [ietf-nomcom] past nomcom chair starting next process X-BeenThere: ietf-nomcom@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions of possible revisions to the NomCom process List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2009 16:44:06 -0000 -- On February 20, 2009 9:43:53 AM -0600 Spencer Dawkins wrote regarding [ietf-nomcom] Two (small) I-Ds now available for discussion -- > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-dawkins-nomcom-dont-wait-00 > .txt. I'm dubious about the success of this. My gut reaction is we're creating more process with little gain. The document says this: This document proposes that the Past NomCom Chair, not the current NomCom Chair, will issue the announcement of open positions and the solicitation for names of volunteers on behalf of the NomCom Chair who will be named by the ISOC President. This allows the search for NomCom Chair and volunteers to proceed in parallel. This is all well and good, and I'm extremely sympathetic to the issue, but if we go down this path then we also need to include process for dealing with the complete set of timing issues. Suppose it takes a really long time to find the new Chair? How much of the process does the old Chair continue to execute? What if a new Chair is not found? On the one hand, we don't deal with this situation now. On the other hand, we do need to deal with it in this case because we have to state a completion scenario. I think what bothers me most is why isn't the solution to his problem that the new Chair has to be identified sooner? Jim From galvin+ietf-nomcom@elistx.com Fri Feb 20 08:49:00 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietf-nomcom@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietf-nomcom@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 77AEE3A6B5D for ; Fri, 20 Feb 2009 08:49:00 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.265 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.265 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, IP_NOT_FRIENDLY=0.334, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id xsZQMqTP1uuP for ; Fri, 20 Feb 2009 08:48:59 -0800 (PST) Received: from ee01.elistx.com (ee01.elistx.com [67.154.239.222]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B79973A6949 for ; Fri, 20 Feb 2009 08:48:59 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by elistx.com (PMDF V6.3-2x2 #31546) with ESMTP id <0KFD00665INTYE@elistx.com> for ietf-nomcom@ietf.org; Fri, 20 Feb 2009 11:47:54 -0500 (EST) Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2009 11:50:06 -0500 From: James Galvin To: NomComDiscussion Message-id: <72E1E2EDDBD5CBDD92BF837F@eList-eXpress-LLC.local> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Mulberry/4.0.8 (Mac OS X) Content-type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=us-ascii Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Content-disposition: inline Subject: [ietf-nomcom] announcing list of willing candidates X-BeenThere: ietf-nomcom@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions of possible revisions to the NomCom process List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2009 16:49:00 -0000 -- On February 20, 2009 9:43:53 AM -0600 Spencer Dawkins wrote regarding [ietf-nomcom] Two (small) I-Ds now available for discussion -- > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-dawkins-nomcom-openlist-00 > .txt. I have always been of the opinion that we should have been doing this. Way back when this process was first documented. Count me supporting this 100%. Jim From danny@tcb.net Fri Feb 20 09:06:58 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietf-nomcom@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietf-nomcom@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1215228C136 for ; Fri, 20 Feb 2009 09:06:58 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.087 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.087 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.030, BAYES_00=-2.599, DNS_FROM_RFC_BOGUSMX=1.482] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id fL6qk0dF3O2I for ; Fri, 20 Feb 2009 09:06:57 -0800 (PST) Received: from dog.tcb.net (dog.tcb.net [64.78.150.133]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 76A9928C110 for ; Fri, 20 Feb 2009 09:06:57 -0800 (PST) Received: by dog.tcb.net (Postfix, from userid 0) id 35A3E2684EA; Fri, 20 Feb 2009 10:07:12 -0700 (MST) Received: from jchouinard-sim-103.eng.ellacoya.com (97-122-99-176.hlrn.qwest.net [97.122.99.176]) (authenticated-user danny) (TLSv1/SSLv3 AES128-SHA 128/128) by dog.tcb.net with SMTP; Fri, 20 Feb 2009 10:07:12 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from danny@tcb.net) X-Avenger: version=0.7.8; receiver=dog.tcb.net; client-ip=97.122.99.176; client-port=58117; syn-fingerprint=65535:55:1:64:M1408,N,W3,N,N,T,S; data-bytes=0 Message-Id: <05EBA2A9-56AE-4D7E-867C-DE338F0FBFFF@tcb.net> From: Danny McPherson To: James Galvin In-Reply-To: <9A79F9B5EBACD319755D40A0@eList-eXpress-LLC.local> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v930.3) Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2009 10:07:11 -0700 References: <9A79F9B5EBACD319755D40A0@eList-eXpress-LLC.local> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.930.3) Cc: NomComDiscussion Subject: Re: [ietf-nomcom] past nomcom chair starting next process X-BeenThere: ietf-nomcom@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions of possible revisions to the NomCom process List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2009 17:06:58 -0000 On Feb 20, 2009, at 9:45 AM, James Galvin wrote: > > I think what bothers me most is why isn't the solution to his > problem that the new Chair has to be identified sooner? Because identifying capable, acceptable, willing chairs is a complex process that is itself serialized? -danny From spencer@wonderhamster.org Fri Feb 20 09:36:51 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietf-nomcom@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietf-nomcom@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 697393A695D for ; Fri, 20 Feb 2009 09:36:51 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.041 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.041 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.557, BAYES_00=-2.599, STOX_REPLY_TYPE=0.001] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id hJkgx-vqMGCl for ; Fri, 20 Feb 2009 09:36:50 -0800 (PST) Received: from mout.perfora.net (mout.perfora.net [74.208.4.195]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 80B3F3A68C0 for ; Fri, 20 Feb 2009 09:36:50 -0800 (PST) Received: from S73602b (cpe-72-190-78-151.tx.res.rr.com [72.190.78.151]) by mrelay.perfora.net (node=mrus0) with ESMTP (Nemesis) id 0MKp8S-1LaZIe06SE-000NT5; Fri, 20 Feb 2009 12:37:04 -0500 Message-ID: From: "Spencer Dawkins" To: "James Galvin" , "NomComDiscussion" References: <9A79F9B5EBACD319755D40A0@eList-eXpress-LLC.local> Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2009 11:36:15 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; reply-type=original Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.5512 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.5579 X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX18C/OwqGKmAOg9YLqiluaov1NGE1NmYbhlE7u+ J5I1F7G1VF1WN3Sw6yUIftTiz4p1960tiqpvQdDHVM/KLZkDH4 tw5AK2jWSGcHfqgyNvTy2RK28SnvqVfX2Vds7s9gdo= Subject: Re: [ietf-nomcom] past nomcom chair starting next process X-BeenThere: ietf-nomcom@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions of possible revisions to the NomCom process List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2009 17:36:51 -0000 Hi, Jim, From: "James Galvin" > -- On February 20, 2009 9:43:53 AM -0600 Spencer Dawkins > wrote regarding [ietf-nomcom] Two (small) I-Ds > now available for discussion -- > >> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-dawkins-nomcom-dont-wait-00 >> .txt. > > I'm dubious about the success of this. My gut reaction is we're creating > more process with little gain. That's certainly one of the questions we need to answer :-) I was asked to put the draft together because the timeline this year ended up being WAY later than what RFC 5078 had proposed. The draft recommended sending out the announcement and solicitation on 2008/05/25, and Joel sent out his announcement and solicitation on 2008/07/15 - nearly two months later. Maybe that was an anomoly. I hope so. On the other hand, the RFC 5078 dates are almost exactly the same in 2009-2010, so we'll know if there's a problem by 2009-05-24... :-| > The document says this: > > This document proposes that the Past NomCom Chair, not the current > NomCom Chair, will issue the announcement of open positions and the > solicitation for names of volunteers on behalf of the NomCom Chair > who will be named by the ISOC President. This allows the search for > NomCom Chair and volunteers to proceed in parallel. > > This is all well and good, and I'm extremely sympathetic to the issue, but > if we go down this path then we also need to include process for dealing > with the complete set of timing issues. > > Suppose it takes a really long time to find the new Chair? How much of > the process does the old Chair continue to execute? I tried to be pretty clear in the document that I was only proposing the announcement and solicitation, but I can certainly imagine that readers see that as precedent for other tasks. If that turns out to be a common reading, that's unfortunate. > What if a new Chair is not found? On the one hand, we don't deal with > this situation now. On the other hand, we do need to deal with it in this > case because we have to state a completion scenario. That's an interesting question, but it is bigger than the question I was trying to answer in my draft. > I think what bothers me most is why isn't the solution to his problem that > the new Chair has to be identified sooner? Well, that would be lovely, of course... :D Thanks, Spencer From sob@harvard.edu Fri Feb 20 09:45:03 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietf-nomcom@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietf-nomcom@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6C85228C110 for ; Fri, 20 Feb 2009 09:45:03 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.189 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.189 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.410, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id atjXRaUcvfbN for ; Fri, 20 Feb 2009 09:45:02 -0800 (PST) Received: from newdev.eecs.harvard.edu (newdev.eecs.harvard.edu [140.247.60.212]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B9F483A6974 for ; Fri, 20 Feb 2009 09:45:02 -0800 (PST) Received: by newdev.eecs.harvard.edu (Postfix, from userid 501) id 76C3913B906E; Fri, 20 Feb 2009 12:45:17 -0500 (EST) To: ietf-nomcom@ietf.org Message-Id: <20090220174517.76C3913B906E@newdev.eecs.harvard.edu> Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2009 12:45:17 -0500 (EST) From: sob@harvard.edu (Scott O. Bradner) Subject: Re: [ietf-nomcom] past nomcom chair starting next process X-BeenThere: ietf-nomcom@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions of possible revisions to the NomCom process List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2009 17:45:03 -0000 seems to me that a simpler solution is for the IETF Secretariat to post that information (what seats are to be decided) whenever it would be a good idea to do so - this is known information one special case is where the IESG decides to add or subtract a area - biut the Secretariat can find that out from the IESG just as well as the nomcom chair can Scott From galvin+ietf-nomcom@elistx.com Fri Feb 20 09:49:46 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietf-nomcom@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietf-nomcom@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BC4683A6B8C for ; Fri, 20 Feb 2009 09:49:46 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.265 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.265 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, IP_NOT_FRIENDLY=0.334, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Kt8p-j8iKGm9 for ; Fri, 20 Feb 2009 09:49:46 -0800 (PST) Received: from ee01.elistx.com (ee01.elistx.com [67.154.239.222]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 30BB33A6BC1 for ; Fri, 20 Feb 2009 09:49:30 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by elistx.com (PMDF V6.3-2x2 #31546) with ESMTP id <0KFD0099ZLGOCF@elistx.com> for ietf-nomcom@ietf.org; Fri, 20 Feb 2009 12:48:24 -0500 (EST) Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2009 12:50:36 -0500 From: James Galvin In-reply-to: <05EBA2A9-56AE-4D7E-867C-DE338F0FBFFF@tcb.net> To: Danny McPherson Message-id: MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Mulberry/4.0.8 (Mac OS X) Content-type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=us-ascii Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Content-disposition: inline References: <9A79F9B5EBACD319755D40A0@eList-eXpress-LLC.local> <05EBA2A9-56AE-4D7E-867C-DE338F0FBFFF@tcb.net> Cc: NomComDiscussion Subject: Re: [ietf-nomcom] past nomcom chair starting next process X-BeenThere: ietf-nomcom@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions of possible revisions to the NomCom process List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2009 17:49:46 -0000 -- On February 20, 2009 10:07:11 AM -0700 Danny McPherson wrote regarding Re: [ietf-nomcom] past nomcom chair starting next process -- > > On Feb 20, 2009, at 9:45 AM, James Galvin wrote: > > > > > I think what bothers me most is why isn't the solution to his > > problem that the new Chair has to be identified sooner? > > Because identifying capable, acceptable, willing chairs is > a complex process that is itself serialized? Yes, but how does this improve that? I see more failure scenarios, not a significant improvement. I'll concede that it might give you more time but then I'll ask again: why isn't the "solution" to start sooner? Jim From galvin@elistx.com Fri Feb 20 09:51:45 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietf-nomcom@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietf-nomcom@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A44AE3A6A69 for ; Fri, 20 Feb 2009 09:51:45 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.265 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.265 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, IP_NOT_FRIENDLY=0.334, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id LgRYoJ3FZcg5 for ; Fri, 20 Feb 2009 09:51:45 -0800 (PST) Received: from ee01.elistx.com (ee01.elistx.com [67.154.239.222]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 001A33A692A for ; Fri, 20 Feb 2009 09:51:44 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by elistx.com (PMDF V6.3-2x2 #31546) with ESMTP id <0KFD00AERLKE5K@elistx.com> for ietf-nomcom@ietf.org; Fri, 20 Feb 2009 12:50:39 -0500 (EST) Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2009 12:52:51 -0500 From: James M Galvin In-reply-to: <20090220174517.76C3913B906E@newdev.eecs.harvard.edu> To: ietf-nomcom@ietf.org Message-id: <6FEC0A374DF3DC2BB0806514@eList-eXpress-LLC.local> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Mulberry/4.0.8 (Mac OS X) Content-type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=us-ascii Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Content-disposition: inline References: <20090220174517.76C3913B906E@newdev.eecs.harvard.edu> X-Mailman-Approved-At: Fri, 20 Feb 2009 09:52:48 -0800 Subject: Re: [ietf-nomcom] past nomcom chair starting next process X-BeenThere: ietf-nomcom@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions of possible revisions to the NomCom process List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2009 17:51:45 -0000 -- On February 20, 2009 12:45:17 PM -0500 "Scott O. Bradner" wrote regarding Re: [ietf-nomcom] past nomcom chair starting next process -- > > seems to me that a simpler solution is for the IETF Secretariat > to post that information (what seats are to be decided) whenever > it would be a good idea to do so - this is known information > > one special case is where the IESG decides to add or subtract > a area - biut the Secretariat can find that out from the IESG > just as well as the nomcom chair can I don't believe this is a complete solution but I like this suggested change nonetheless. Jim From danny@tcb.net Fri Feb 20 10:02:26 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietf-nomcom@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietf-nomcom@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BEE2A3A6A70 for ; Fri, 20 Feb 2009 10:02:26 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.09 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.09 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.027, BAYES_00=-2.599, DNS_FROM_RFC_BOGUSMX=1.482] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 6LebMuxFHdb2 for ; Fri, 20 Feb 2009 10:02:26 -0800 (PST) Received: from dog.tcb.net (dog.tcb.net [64.78.150.133]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0D19928C14F for ; Fri, 20 Feb 2009 10:02:26 -0800 (PST) Received: by dog.tcb.net (Postfix, from userid 0) id EF9E02684EA; Fri, 20 Feb 2009 11:02:40 -0700 (MST) Received: from jchouinard-sim-103.eng.ellacoya.com (97-122-99-176.hlrn.qwest.net [97.122.99.176]) (authenticated-user danny) (TLSv1/SSLv3 AES128-SHA 128/128) by dog.tcb.net with SMTP; Fri, 20 Feb 2009 11:02:40 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from danny@tcb.net) X-Avenger: version=0.7.8; receiver=dog.tcb.net; client-ip=97.122.99.176; client-port=58819; syn-fingerprint=65535:55:1:64:M1408,N,W3,N,N,T,S; data-bytes=0 Message-Id: From: Danny McPherson To: James Galvin In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v930.3) Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2009 11:02:39 -0700 References: <9A79F9B5EBACD319755D40A0@eList-eXpress-LLC.local> <05EBA2A9-56AE-4D7E-867C-DE338F0FBFFF@tcb.net> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.930.3) Cc: NomComDiscussion Subject: Re: [ietf-nomcom] past nomcom chair starting next process X-BeenThere: ietf-nomcom@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions of possible revisions to the NomCom process List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2009 18:02:26 -0000 On Feb 20, 2009, at 10:50 AM, James Galvin wrote: > > > -- On February 20, 2009 10:07:11 AM -0700 Danny McPherson > wrote regarding Re: [ietf-nomcom] past nomcom chair starting next > process -- > >> >> On Feb 20, 2009, at 9:45 AM, James Galvin wrote: >> >> > >> > I think what bothers me most is why isn't the solution to his >> > problem that the new Chair has to be identified sooner? >> >> Because identifying capable, acceptable, willing chairs is >> a complex process that is itself serialized? > > Yes, but how does this improve that? I see more failure scenarios, > not a significant improvement. Please enumerate? It seems to me that if the ISOC President is searching for a NomCom chair, whatever the process, and is well aware of the time constraints involved, this only improves the situation when a chair has not yet been selected. It also "primes the pipe" for the incoming chair. > I'll concede that it might give you more time but then I'll ask > again: why isn't the "solution" to start sooner? I could argue that if the chair is selected considerably earlier in the process, there are more variables that could inject stability issues (e.g., employment and time availability) would be more of a factor. This recommendation eases constraints of one of the longest gates in the process, of course other problems exist. I think the goal of this exercise is to make things suck less.. -danny From housley@vigilsec.com Fri Feb 20 11:57:39 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietf-nomcom@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietf-nomcom@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2A4A23A6359 for ; Fri, 20 Feb 2009 11:57:39 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.444 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.444 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.155, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id MCp1AgiButX8 for ; Fri, 20 Feb 2009 11:57:38 -0800 (PST) Received: from woodstock.binhost.com (woodstock.binhost.com [8.8.40.152]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 58C923A68B5 for ; Fri, 20 Feb 2009 11:57:38 -0800 (PST) Received: (qmail 736 invoked by uid 0); 20 Feb 2009 19:51:08 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO THINKPADR52.vigilsec.com) (96.255.144.212) by woodstock.binhost.com with SMTP; 20 Feb 2009 19:51:08 -0000 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.1.0.9 Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2009 14:47:34 -0500 To: ietf-nomcom@ietf.org From: Russ Housley In-Reply-To: References: <9A79F9B5EBACD319755D40A0@eList-eXpress-LLC.local> <05EBA2A9-56AE-4D7E-867C-DE338F0FBFFF@tcb.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Message-Id: <20090220195738.58C923A68B5@core3.amsl.com> Subject: Re: [ietf-nomcom] past nomcom chair starting next process X-BeenThere: ietf-nomcom@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions of possible revisions to the NomCom process List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2009 19:57:39 -0000 >I think the goal of this exercise is to make things suck less.. Yes. The goal is incremental improvement, not massive redesign. Russ From galvin+ietf-nomcom@elistx.com Fri Feb 20 12:19:59 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietf-nomcom@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietf-nomcom@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C57883A6988 for ; Fri, 20 Feb 2009 12:19:59 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.265 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.265 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, IP_NOT_FRIENDLY=0.334, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id aOaNjOKaDBFd for ; Fri, 20 Feb 2009 12:19:59 -0800 (PST) Received: from ee01.elistx.com (ee01.elistx.com [67.154.239.222]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6E2883A69C9 for ; Fri, 20 Feb 2009 12:19:58 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by elistx.com (PMDF V6.3-2x2 #31546) with ESMTP id <0KFD00PE2SFE39@elistx.com> for ietf-nomcom@ietf.org; Fri, 20 Feb 2009 15:18:50 -0500 (EST) Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2009 15:21:03 -0500 From: James Galvin In-reply-to: <20090220195738.58C923A68B5@core3.amsl.com> To: Russ Housley , ietf-nomcom@ietf.org Message-id: MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Mulberry/4.0.8 (Mac OS X) Content-type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=us-ascii Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Content-disposition: inline References: <9A79F9B5EBACD319755D40A0@eList-eXpress-LLC.local> <05EBA2A9-56AE-4D7E-867C-DE338F0FBFFF@tcb.net> <20090220195738.58C923A68B5@core3.amsl.com> Subject: Re: [ietf-nomcom] past nomcom chair starting next process X-BeenThere: ietf-nomcom@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions of possible revisions to the NomCom process List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2009 20:19:59 -0000 -- On February 20, 2009 2:47:34 PM -0500 Russ Housley wrote regarding Re: [ietf-nomcom] past nomcom chair starting next process -- > > > I think the goal of this exercise is to make things suck less.. > > Yes. The goal is incremental improvement, not massive redesign. Sorry but I don't see much of an improvement. If you're having that much trouble finding a Chair, how is it that a "few" more weeks makes a difference? At least there's no guarantee. You essentially have the same problem. If you still don't find a Chair now you've started a process and how are you going to finish it? In any case, the more I think about it, the more I like Scott Bradner's suggestion. What this document proposes is "off-loading" two of the administrative tasks from the new NOMCOM chair: announcing the "open" positions and beginning the collection of eligible NOMCOM volunteers. It occurs to me that these are ideally suited to be handed off to the Secretariat, not to the previous NOMCOM chair, precisely because they are just administrative. Also, we don't have to consider NOMCOM to have officially started until the new NOMCOM chair is announced, again because we declare these two actions as administrative and put them on the Secretariat (ideally these should just be something on the web site, particularly the collection of volunteers, so it's not burdensome at all). Jim From brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com Fri Feb 20 13:46:58 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietf-nomcom@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietf-nomcom@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BD8D43A69BF for ; Fri, 20 Feb 2009 13:46:58 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id LXzt3PfHmYOA for ; Fri, 20 Feb 2009 13:46:58 -0800 (PST) Received: from ti-out-0910.google.com (ti-out-0910.google.com [209.85.142.184]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 995B83A6918 for ; Fri, 20 Feb 2009 13:46:57 -0800 (PST) Received: by ti-out-0910.google.com with SMTP id 11so700224tim.25 for ; Fri, 20 Feb 2009 13:47:12 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from :organization:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject:references :in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=Mm0Oate8hE4vC2RKznPupbsi7CwRoxI5IdUTWkWdaRE=; b=CIysC2Y/gNF/3ECWENg8aFZCWNFxZPmkELJDt2Av5R7FcBlRxp8MRvGWZ9mrtIMBQt /tct+5sY5Nzxudyi8uCcA35szvnod+7K5u7TkiJLVoExmWjykmx+4UKSTd35X8u5xIFS NP+lsHVQ0wCereMhtYl3u/gXk8JFaMPc1mw+0= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:organization:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc :subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; b=cXM4tZx8eiCkUuL+b6XLhbi/+s8YEaSCHAN4wwiD/S3JKAUnAKvWyj3KdCw9eGMvwe s/9S1H6vmNuAgv9a2BvRPZ4o3rPJUKZSe3WsUpvvmeYJhv3vVjO62zMYY/lBFxaTDxo0 fKF8Ikn+03L0tdaZX/zWHkevrReVoOXf7Dysw= Received: by 10.110.62.4 with SMTP id k4mr1635884tia.52.1235166431917; Fri, 20 Feb 2009 13:47:11 -0800 (PST) Received: from ?10.1.1.4? (118-92-129-217.dsl.dyn.ihug.co.nz [118.92.129.217]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id u8sm2209682tia.10.2009.02.20.13.47.09 (version=SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Fri, 20 Feb 2009 13:47:11 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <499F24DA.4030302@gmail.com> Date: Sat, 21 Feb 2009 10:47:06 +1300 From: Brian E Carpenter Organization: University of Auckland User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.6 (Windows/20070728) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: James Galvin References: <9A79F9B5EBACD319755D40A0@eList-eXpress-LLC.local> In-Reply-To: <9A79F9B5EBACD319755D40A0@eList-eXpress-LLC.local> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: NomComDiscussion Subject: Re: [ietf-nomcom] past nomcom chair starting next process X-BeenThere: ietf-nomcom@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions of possible revisions to the NomCom process List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2009 21:46:58 -0000 On 2009-02-21 05:45, James Galvin wrote: > > > -- On February 20, 2009 9:43:53 AM -0600 Spencer Dawkins > wrote regarding [ietf-nomcom] Two (small) > I-Ds now available for discussion -- > >> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-dawkins-nomcom-dont-wait-00 >> .txt. > > I'm dubious about the success of this. My gut reaction is we're > creating more process with little gain. > > The document says this: > > This document proposes that the Past NomCom Chair, not the current > NomCom Chair, will issue the announcement of open positions and the > solicitation for names of volunteers on behalf of the NomCom Chair > who will be named by the ISOC President. This allows the search for > NomCom Chair and volunteers to proceed in parallel. > > This is all well and good, and I'm extremely sympathetic to the issue, > but if we go down this path then we also need to include process for > dealing with the complete set of timing issues. > > Suppose it takes a really long time to find the new Chair? How much of > the process does the old Chair continue to execute? > > What if a new Chair is not found? On the one hand, we don't deal with > this situation now. On the other hand, we do need to deal with it in > this case because we have to state a completion scenario. > > I think what bothers me most is why isn't the solution to his problem > that the new Chair has to be identified sooner? I concur. I watched this particular sausage being made a couple of times while I was IETF Chair, and I think this would be a better solution in the end. Especially in years when the ISOC President finds it difficult to find a willing victim; more time will help in that case too. Brian From brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com Fri Feb 20 13:55:56 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietf-nomcom@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietf-nomcom@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 07BD73A67FB for ; Fri, 20 Feb 2009 13:55:56 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 0VC5m2rNWlfa for ; Fri, 20 Feb 2009 13:55:55 -0800 (PST) Received: from ti-out-0910.google.com (ti-out-0910.google.com [209.85.142.184]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CD7D13A67EA for ; Fri, 20 Feb 2009 13:55:54 -0800 (PST) Received: by ti-out-0910.google.com with SMTP id 11so701018tim.25 for ; Fri, 20 Feb 2009 13:56:08 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from :organization:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject:references :in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=h/W7cYLYZxAJ7y4N0qR71544cfGzmeCSoJQY4Cv47Wc=; b=ZRrrYzSRm48FMW0oQOvsEqPG0YA5D7nW79f4k/+HMdcrX3Jh3JamYhrA1ovqedr/eU 3bQ3UT9M9n1fVjJ+f8T8b18m15hdLr2X87gLoZcOabgG6sgfR5dZ6Eu0DmubqqZk0dh2 l5YACABJpwv4VoHFeW1SvcQLj6XAU/iDqo1ek= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:organization:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc :subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; b=NjMVH/wsodIz84GvWlM0IVrVkwyFgXCIisyIAHyC4AABJzK7E7yFZiXfwEfx6+OAtK zW2m5EYGmwdV2DfGItu1roGJ4GLYUrGkclFJEEwN9w+5w1djZnTLWi2C/RCkn3iEGKtu e1eTHVtELHiutvc1tT4IKVcknQ8GVXZE+5aYY= Received: by 10.110.50.19 with SMTP id x19mr1701825tix.12.1235166968664; Fri, 20 Feb 2009 13:56:08 -0800 (PST) Received: from ?10.1.1.4? (118-92-129-217.dsl.dyn.ihug.co.nz [118.92.129.217]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id 25sm2145612tif.32.2009.02.20.13.56.06 (version=SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Fri, 20 Feb 2009 13:56:08 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <499F26F4.6030903@gmail.com> Date: Sat, 21 Feb 2009 10:56:04 +1300 From: Brian E Carpenter Organization: University of Auckland User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.6 (Windows/20070728) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: NomComDiscussion References: <9A79F9B5EBACD319755D40A0@eList-eXpress-LLC.local> <499F24DA.4030302@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <499F24DA.4030302@gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [ietf-nomcom] past nomcom chair starting next process X-BeenThere: ietf-nomcom@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions of possible revisions to the NomCom process List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2009 21:55:56 -0000 Sorry to follow up my own post. It now seems to me we should do both things. 1. Bring forward the date when the search for the new NomCom chair starts. 2. State that IF the new chair has not been announced by X date, THEN the current chair will kick things off as in Spencer's draft. Brian On 2009-02-21 10:47, Brian E Carpenter wrote: > On 2009-02-21 05:45, James Galvin wrote: >> >> -- On February 20, 2009 9:43:53 AM -0600 Spencer Dawkins >> wrote regarding [ietf-nomcom] Two (small) >> I-Ds now available for discussion -- >> >>> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-dawkins-nomcom-dont-wait-00 >>> .txt. >> I'm dubious about the success of this. My gut reaction is we're >> creating more process with little gain. >> >> The document says this: >> >> This document proposes that the Past NomCom Chair, not the current >> NomCom Chair, will issue the announcement of open positions and the >> solicitation for names of volunteers on behalf of the NomCom Chair >> who will be named by the ISOC President. This allows the search for >> NomCom Chair and volunteers to proceed in parallel. >> >> This is all well and good, and I'm extremely sympathetic to the issue, >> but if we go down this path then we also need to include process for >> dealing with the complete set of timing issues. >> >> Suppose it takes a really long time to find the new Chair? How much of >> the process does the old Chair continue to execute? >> >> What if a new Chair is not found? On the one hand, we don't deal with >> this situation now. On the other hand, we do need to deal with it in >> this case because we have to state a completion scenario. >> >> I think what bothers me most is why isn't the solution to his problem >> that the new Chair has to be identified sooner? > > I concur. I watched this particular sausage being made a couple of times > while I was IETF Chair, and I think this would be a better solution > in the end. Especially in years when the ISOC President finds it difficult > to find a willing victim; more time will help in that case too. > > Brian > From brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com Fri Feb 20 14:02:59 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietf-nomcom@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietf-nomcom@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A136B3A6875 for ; Fri, 20 Feb 2009 14:02:59 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id PIv+TrryYN2B for ; Fri, 20 Feb 2009 14:02:58 -0800 (PST) Received: from ti-out-0910.google.com (ti-out-0910.google.com [209.85.142.190]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7EED13A63EC for ; Fri, 20 Feb 2009 14:02:58 -0800 (PST) Received: by ti-out-0910.google.com with SMTP id 11so701789tim.25 for ; Fri, 20 Feb 2009 14:03:11 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from :organization:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject:references :in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=IjngGzHEyKfGMHOwuaUcGqLEEePOfgmt5tzGsrX6GtE=; b=IkwJcPcKIc8VthwLDsrluD3mzvJ1/a/1tbbwdWcCz5xnM85yL+12oRwYJjSExpJnOu w4tiofkO27QoEN77w1yngg44hAlZoXMQQNU6UUCZC9iRC9IOaT56Rz+kgaBntpD0RHiv XqBLuAlFj5jklj+S7+HBzy/y2zNmK/TtBGXD0= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:organization:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc :subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; b=fnivj7OMXtLct1j2ZC20canwkFjkF0KHHrn8bju0NSutokRKDj67WW8O8m4hMW8vZX e0L8M3QpcjvbsZwARY1mXMbtIddotzscq/b6YfQwEYuPwXlitIj/Rl8L1mOiv4XtrBnt WIihh/4BXCiZKTflY+/4QEv9vHQ4d3qLsldPs= Received: by 10.110.90.9 with SMTP id n9mr1691519tib.25.1235167391658; Fri, 20 Feb 2009 14:03:11 -0800 (PST) Received: from ?10.1.1.4? (118-92-129-217.dsl.dyn.ihug.co.nz [118.92.129.217]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id a14sm1773176tia.27.2009.02.20.14.03.09 (version=SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Fri, 20 Feb 2009 14:03:10 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <499F289A.5050401@gmail.com> Date: Sat, 21 Feb 2009 11:03:06 +1300 From: Brian E Carpenter Organization: University of Auckland User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.6 (Windows/20070728) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: James Galvin References: <72E1E2EDDBD5CBDD92BF837F@eList-eXpress-LLC.local> In-Reply-To: <72E1E2EDDBD5CBDD92BF837F@eList-eXpress-LLC.local> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: NomComDiscussion Subject: Re: [ietf-nomcom] announcing list of willing candidates X-BeenThere: ietf-nomcom@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions of possible revisions to the NomCom process List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2009 22:02:59 -0000 On 2009-02-21 05:50, James Galvin wrote: > > > -- On February 20, 2009 9:43:53 AM -0600 Spencer Dawkins > wrote regarding [ietf-nomcom] Two (small) > I-Ds now available for discussion -- > >> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-dawkins-nomcom-openlist-00 >> .txt. > > I have always been of the opinion that we should have been doing this. > Way back when this process was first documented. > > Count me supporting this 100%. I agree that an open list is desirable, and I don't think it would have caused me to refuse nomination in the years when I've been considered. The issue is that we've always had a wide range of opinions on this in the past. Has that changed? Nit: The list of candidates published should not contain candidates who have not indicated a willingness to serve in the position(s) under review. Add something like: The published list should be updated if additional candidates indicate their willingness to serve in time to be considered by the NomCom. Brian From leslie@thinkingcat.com Fri Feb 20 15:17:41 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietf-nomcom@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietf-nomcom@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1EE1F3A6A9C for ; Fri, 20 Feb 2009 15:17:41 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id MoxuAgUt7k8A for ; Fri, 20 Feb 2009 15:17:40 -0800 (PST) Received: from zeke.ecotroph.net (zeke.ecotroph.net [70.164.19.155]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 309333A63EC for ; Fri, 20 Feb 2009 15:17:40 -0800 (PST) Received: from beethoven.local ([::ffff:209.183.196.229]) (AUTH: PLAIN leslie, SSL: TLSv1/SSLv3,256bits,AES256-SHA) by zeke.ecotroph.net with esmtp; Fri, 20 Feb 2009 18:17:54 -0500 id 015880AC.499F3A22.000047EC Message-ID: <499F3A1A.7020205@thinkingcat.com> Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2009 18:17:46 -0500 From: Leslie Daigle User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.19 (Macintosh/20081209) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: NomComDiscussion References: <72E1E2EDDBD5CBDD92BF837F@eList-eXpress-LLC.local> In-Reply-To: <72E1E2EDDBD5CBDD92BF837F@eList-eXpress-LLC.local> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [ietf-nomcom] announcing list of willing candidates X-BeenThere: ietf-nomcom@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions of possible revisions to the NomCom process List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2009 23:17:41 -0000 Irrespectively of what one may think about publishing the list of willing candidates, there are (at least) 3 issues leftover from the last time this was discussed as a WG, that need to be addressed in this draft: 1/ Affecting the willingness of candidates. It has been said that candidates will not stand up and visibly challenge incumbents, who are (after all) still making decisions about the work they are presumably doing within the Area. 2/ Campaigning/lobbying Once it is confirmed public knowledge who is willing to take up a particular role, what will be the ground rules for public lobbying? (Either by the person themselves, or their supporters)? Or, should that be embraced directly, and is there more work to be done to specify what sort of statements the candidates should make publicly? 3/ Flexibility NomComs sometimes find that their lists of willing candidates do not include the best candidate for the job, generally after the stated deadline for accepting nominations. In the past, arms have been twisted, funding has been found, at very late dates. This has even been for the better of the IETF as a whole. This draft should address whether that will still be feasible, and under what conditions (or why the tradeoff is worth it). As a general observation, I believe the draft conflates the issues of: . being public about the slate of willing volunteers; and . soliciting input from the entire community (not just the set of people selected by a given NomCom) and concludes that the accurate list should be published to the entire community. These are actually separate issues, and a balanced draft should separate the possible outcomes, in my opinion. Thanks, Leslie. (And, no, I've not ever been reluctant to state my willingness/not for a given position, but if we're going to have the discussion, I believe we have to have the WHOLE discussion). James Galvin wrote: > > > -- On February 20, 2009 9:43:53 AM -0600 Spencer Dawkins > wrote regarding [ietf-nomcom] Two (small) > I-Ds now available for discussion -- > >> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-dawkins-nomcom-openlist-00 >> .txt. > > I have always been of the opinion that we should have been doing this. > Way back when this process was first documented. > > Count me supporting this 100%. > > Jim > > > _______________________________________________ > ietf-nomcom mailing list > ietf-nomcom@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-nomcom -- ------------------------------------------------------------------- "Reality: Yours to discover." -- ThinkingCat Leslie Daigle leslie@thinkingcat.com ------------------------------------------------------------------- From danny@tcb.net Fri Feb 20 15:44:44 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietf-nomcom@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietf-nomcom@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0C0943A68F8 for ; Fri, 20 Feb 2009 15:44:44 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.094 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.094 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.023, BAYES_00=-2.599, DNS_FROM_RFC_BOGUSMX=1.482] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 9W5m1B7Uza-6 for ; Fri, 20 Feb 2009 15:44:43 -0800 (PST) Received: from dog.tcb.net (dog.tcb.net [64.78.150.133]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3F9263A6875 for ; Fri, 20 Feb 2009 15:44:43 -0800 (PST) Received: by dog.tcb.net (Postfix, from userid 0) id 5A2FC2684EA; Fri, 20 Feb 2009 16:44:58 -0700 (MST) Received: from jchouinard-sim-103.eng.ellacoya.com (97-122-99-176.hlrn.qwest.net [97.122.99.176]) (authenticated-user danny) (TLSv1/SSLv3 AES128-SHA 128/128) by dog.tcb.net with SMTP; for ietf-nomcom@ietf.org; Fri, 20 Feb 2009 16:44:58 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from danny@tcb.net) X-Avenger: version=0.7.8; receiver=dog.tcb.net; client-ip=97.122.99.176; client-port=65379; syn-fingerprint=65535:55:1:64:M1408,N,W3,N,N,T,S; data-bytes=0 Message-Id: <51C740C6-2F58-4B5D-BB51-C6C937D5EF35@tcb.net> From: Danny McPherson To: NomComDiscussion In-Reply-To: <499F3A1A.7020205@thinkingcat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v930.3) Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2009 16:44:57 -0700 References: <72E1E2EDDBD5CBDD92BF837F@eList-eXpress-LLC.local> <499F3A1A.7020205@thinkingcat.com> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.930.3) Subject: Re: [ietf-nomcom] announcing list of willing candidates X-BeenThere: ietf-nomcom@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions of possible revisions to the NomCom process List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2009 23:44:44 -0000 On Feb 20, 2009, at 4:17 PM, Leslie Daigle wrote: > > Irrespectively of what one may think about publishing the list of > willing candidates, there are (at least) 3 issues leftover from the > last time this was discussed as a WG, that need to be addressed in > this draft: > > 1/ Affecting the willingness of candidates. > > It has been said that candidates will not stand up and visibly > challenge incumbents, who are (after all) still making decisions > about the work they are presumably doing within the Area. Time for folks to grow up here :-) > 2/ Campaigning/lobbying > > Once it is confirmed public knowledge who is willing to take up a > particular role, what will be the ground rules for public lobbying? > (Either by the person themselves, or their supporters)? Or, should > that be embraced directly, and is there more work to be done to > specify what sort of statements the candidates should make publicly? It happens privately today, at least it's out on the table. > 3/ Flexibility > > NomComs sometimes find that their lists of willing candidates do not > include the best candidate for the job, generally after the stated > deadline for accepting nominations. In the past, arms have been > twisted, funding has been found, at very late dates. This has even > been for the better of the IETF as a whole. This draft should > address whether that will still be feasible, and under what > conditions (or why the tradeoff is worth it). I presume this is one of those things that this draft enables to remain up to the processes of the nomcom itself, and would think any additional prescriptive text here would be undesirable. > As a general observation, I believe the draft conflates the issues of: > > . being public about the slate of willing volunteers; and > . soliciting input from the entire community (not just the set > of people selected by a given NomCom) > > and concludes that the accurate list should be published to the > entire community. These are actually separate issues, and a > balanced draft should separate the possible outcomes, in my opinion. Yeah, I think that's a fair point, I hope Spencer can craft text to accurately capture it. > Thanks, > Leslie. > (And, no, I've not ever been reluctant to state my willingness/not > for a given position, but if we're going to have the discussion, I > believe we have to have the WHOLE discussion). Yep! -danny From kre@munnari.OZ.AU Sat Feb 21 01:19:13 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietf-nomcom@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietf-nomcom@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 399723A6868 for ; Sat, 21 Feb 2009 01:19:13 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.048 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.048 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, RDNS_NONE=0.1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id IFnOhGL7AgWg for ; Sat, 21 Feb 2009 01:19:12 -0800 (PST) Received: from jade.coe.psu.ac.th (unknown [202.28.99.196]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C84CC3A67A3 for ; Sat, 21 Feb 2009 01:19:11 -0800 (PST) Received: from epsilon.noi.kre.to (jade.coe.psu.ac.th [202.28.99.196]) by jade.coe.psu.ac.th with ESMTP id n1L9HZW4001528 for ; Sat, 21 Feb 2009 16:17:46 +0700 (ICT) Received: from epsilon.noi.kre.to (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by epsilon.noi.kre.to (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id n1L9GSFD007052 for ; Sat, 21 Feb 2009 16:16:37 +0700 (ICT) From: Robert Elz To: NomComDiscussion In-Reply-To: <499F3A1A.7020205@thinkingcat.com> References: <499F3A1A.7020205@thinkingcat.com> <72E1E2EDDBD5CBDD92BF837F@eList-eXpress-LLC.local> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Sat, 21 Feb 2009 16:16:28 +0700 Message-ID: <26661.1235207788@epsilon.noi.kre.to> Sender: kre@munnari.OZ.AU Subject: Re: [ietf-nomcom] announcing list of willing candidates X-BeenThere: ietf-nomcom@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions of possible revisions to the NomCom process List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 21 Feb 2009 09:19:13 -0000 Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2009 18:17:46 -0500 From: Leslie Daigle Message-ID: <499F3A1A.7020205@thinkingcat.com> | Irrespectively of what one may think about publishing the list of | willing candidates, there are (at least) 3 issues leftover from the last | time this was discussed as a WG, that need to be addressed in this draft: I agree with all of that, and those issues are strong arguments against candidate name disclosure. Further, I am not sure what the problem is supposed to be? It seems to be that the nomcom is somehow bothered that it isn't getting feedback about (some) candidates because no-one knows they are candidates, and they're seeking to rectify that. Huh??? Not getting feedback about someone is perhaps better information than getting it. That indicates that no-one is seriously considering that person as even a possibility for the role in question. On the other hand, when you get feedback, you have to try and figure out the motivations and relationships involved to understand how reliable it is to be taken. Why would anyone want to change this, and do away with the best possible indicator of community sentiment that is available? The only reason I can see for demanding explicit feedback would be if the nomcom were effectively just counting "votes" - 9 respondents said that person was great, with just one not so sure, looks good; this one got 4 goodish replies and 4 not so good, do doubtful, and everyone we asked was opposed to this other possibility, so the first of them wins... That's not the way the nomcom is supposed to choose, or not the way I ever believed it was supposed to happen. Lists of known candidates, even more campaigning, ... is just moving further and further towards straight out voting, which is not really possible with the IETF, and wouldn't produce the results that are needed anyway. kre From spencer@wonderhamster.org Sat Feb 21 05:06:03 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietf-nomcom@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietf-nomcom@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 566DC3A6B56 for ; Sat, 21 Feb 2009 05:06:03 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.853 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.853 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.854, BAYES_50=0.001] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id E6ky7i0apCwy for ; Sat, 21 Feb 2009 05:06:02 -0800 (PST) Received: from mout.perfora.net (mout.perfora.net [74.208.4.194]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 639233A6990 for ; Sat, 21 Feb 2009 05:06:02 -0800 (PST) Received: from S73602b (cpe-72-190-78-151.tx.res.rr.com [72.190.78.151]) by mrelay.perfora.net (node=mrus0) with ESMTP (Nemesis) id 0MKp8S-1LarYd3IQo-000NSa; Sat, 21 Feb 2009 08:06:17 -0500 Message-ID: From: "Spencer Dawkins" To: "NomComDiscussion" References: <72E1E2EDDBD5CBDD92BF837F@eList-eXpress-LLC.local><499F3A1A.7020205@thinkingcat.com> <51C740C6-2F58-4B5D-BB51-C6C937D5EF35@tcb.net> Date: Sat, 21 Feb 2009 07:05:59 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; reply-type=response Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.5512 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.5579 X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX1+k8+mJFSnmTSR8VSrOtKR4NZ6KZ+ZZuyhSyQn u3PjKuLt8f4/hiaAEmE1c7rKg4mUWNXuQDJ6pXzzcFN4Bul3CH Ro5Kwm9t6NNKXT3tJK5HdF0lY0l8VcjUMNSn3G7x9c= Subject: Re: [ietf-nomcom] announcing list of willing candidates X-BeenThere: ietf-nomcom@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions of possible revisions to the NomCom process List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 21 Feb 2009 13:06:03 -0000 I'm probably just being dense here, but I am confused... I agree with Leslie's point here: >> As a general observation, I believe the draft conflates the issues of: >> >> . being public about the slate of willing volunteers; and >> . soliciting input from the entire community (not just the set >> of people selected by a given NomCom) >> >> and concludes that the accurate list should be published to the entire >> community. These are actually separate issues, and a balanced draft >> should separate the possible outcomes, in my opinion. As did Danny: > Yeah, I think that's a fair point, I hope Spencer can craft > text to accurately capture it. Are you guys thinking of two ISSUES here, or two OUTCOMES here? I'm having a hard time figuring out how we ask the entire community without telling them the entire slate - or were you thinking that you would (for example) ask people to go to a web page that would offer each respondent a SUBSET of names under consideration, so that no one sees the entire slate? Cluelessly yours (sorry!), Spencer From spencer@wonderhamster.org Sat Feb 21 05:24:33 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietf-nomcom@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietf-nomcom@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5F1EA3A6805 for ; Sat, 21 Feb 2009 05:24:33 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.01 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.01 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.588, BAYES_00=-2.599, STOX_REPLY_TYPE=0.001] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id EUAvOSbSevha for ; Sat, 21 Feb 2009 05:24:32 -0800 (PST) Received: from mout.perfora.net (mout.perfora.net [74.208.4.195]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 667BF3A6452 for ; Sat, 21 Feb 2009 05:24:32 -0800 (PST) Received: from S73602b (cpe-72-190-78-151.tx.res.rr.com [72.190.78.151]) by mrelay.perfora.net (node=mrus0) with ESMTP (Nemesis) id 0MKp8S-1LarqV4Ax5-000NZP; Sat, 21 Feb 2009 08:24:47 -0500 Message-ID: From: "Spencer Dawkins" To: "Robert Elz" References: <499F3A1A.7020205@thinkingcat.com><72E1E2EDDBD5CBDD92BF837F@eList-eXpress-LLC.local> <26661.1235207788@epsilon.noi.kre.to> Date: Sat, 21 Feb 2009 07:24:25 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; reply-type=original Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.5512 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.5579 X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX1/4Mfft9MXHAaojcQh1To8NxCpv5Xg5kIJMdvx xpWqwr9565/+xl+lPuMDW8YwWCZl5alDyKRPrBvU7Yrm61QLE6 +WTv7Q8Xla9QNhD27jfoJyWRraYaBHBlTQ9p9hDHqo= Cc: NomComDiscussion Subject: Re: [ietf-nomcom] announcing list of willing candidates X-BeenThere: ietf-nomcom@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions of possible revisions to the NomCom process List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 21 Feb 2009 13:24:33 -0000 Hi, Robert, Our mileage obviously differs. I do most of my work in the RAI area, and try to support NomCom by providing feedback on candidates pretty much every year. I'm a working group co-chair, so I know all of the candidates for RAI AD who I've ever seen listed on a short list. Without seeing a short list, I would be looking at providing feedback on about 15 reasonably serious potential candidates, every year. I try to provide concrete examples for my feedback - so it's not short, and not quick to provide. I don't have to "cover the world" with my feedback - I'm a working group co-chair, so I do see a short list. I'd like for the general community to have the opportunity to provide feedback on willing candidates without having to play whack-a-mole with all of the leading potential candidates. Other areas may very well not have this problem, and I accept that possibility. Thanks, Spencer > Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2009 18:17:46 -0500 > From: Leslie Daigle > Message-ID: <499F3A1A.7020205@thinkingcat.com> > > | Irrespectively of what one may think about publishing the list of > | willing candidates, there are (at least) 3 issues leftover from the > last > | time this was discussed as a WG, that need to be addressed in this > draft: > > I agree with all of that, and those issues are strong arguments against > candidate name disclosure. > > Further, I am not sure what the problem is supposed to be? It seems > to be that the nomcom is somehow bothered that it isn't getting feedback > about (some) candidates because no-one knows they are candidates, and > they're seeking to rectify that. Huh??? Not getting feedback about > someone > is perhaps better information than getting it. That indicates that > no-one > is seriously considering that person as even a possibility for the role in > question. On the other hand, when you get feedback, you have to try and > figure out the motivations and relationships involved to understand how > reliable it is to be taken. Why would anyone want to change this, and do > away with the best possible indicator of community sentiment that is > available? > > The only reason I can see for demanding explicit feedback would be if the > nomcom were effectively just counting "votes" - 9 respondents said that > person > was great, with just one not so sure, looks good; this one got 4 goodish > replies and 4 not so good, do doubtful, and everyone we asked was opposed > to this other possibility, so the first of them wins... > > That's not the way the nomcom is supposed to choose, or not the way I ever > believed it was supposed to happen. Lists of known candidates, even more > campaigning, ... is just moving further and further towards straight out > voting, which is not really possible with the IETF, and wouldn't produce > the > results that are needed anyway. > > kre > > > > _______________________________________________ > ietf-nomcom mailing list > ietf-nomcom@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-nomcom > From spencer@wonderhamster.org Sat Feb 21 05:35:17 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietf-nomcom@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietf-nomcom@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1DB053A6927 for ; Sat, 21 Feb 2009 05:35:17 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.094 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.094 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.504, BAYES_00=-2.599, STOX_REPLY_TYPE=0.001] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id JF+JzIqajlEU for ; Sat, 21 Feb 2009 05:35:16 -0800 (PST) Received: from mout.perfora.net (mout.perfora.net [74.208.4.194]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 384183A6805 for ; Sat, 21 Feb 2009 05:35:16 -0800 (PST) Received: from S73602b (cpe-72-190-78-151.tx.res.rr.com [72.190.78.151]) by mrelay.perfora.net (node=mrus1) with ESMTP (Nemesis) id 0MKpCa-1Las0u3ERc-0000q8; Sat, 21 Feb 2009 08:35:31 -0500 Message-ID: <3DBA1252C9594581A7904E3F9925A92E@china.huawei.com> From: "Spencer Dawkins" To: "Brian E Carpenter" , "NomComDiscussion" References: <9A79F9B5EBACD319755D40A0@eList-eXpress-LLC.local><499F24DA.4030302@gmail.com> <499F26F4.6030903@gmail.com> Date: Sat, 21 Feb 2009 07:35:11 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; reply-type=original Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.5512 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.5579 X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX1/JOKeo2eKHJpPeTWkzA7hjF2XpW5NH8mq/0nx +LDN0H3TNHfafLtg8+MWR8RVpKEUBe+3DfHuMXJFVkwKACRKBx YQydmHaqsCIUDrXwbxZ3bqxmHCCfDo/Q51JBLY05zQ= Subject: Re: [ietf-nomcom] past nomcom chair starting next process X-BeenThere: ietf-nomcom@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions of possible revisions to the NomCom process List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 21 Feb 2009 13:35:17 -0000 To the group... The first version of this draft did include conditional language ("IF the new chair has not been announced by X date"). I removed it because I could't state "X date" unambiguously (the RFC 5078 timeline is based off actual IETF face-to-face meeting dates, which do move around some from year to year), and because it seemed less complex to just have the Past NomCom chair do it every year. I can make the changes Brian suggested, but I'd like to know whether other people support this suggestion. Thanks, Spencer > Sorry to follow up my own post. > > It now seems to me we should do both things. > > 1. Bring forward the date when the search for the new NomCom chair starts. > > 2. State that IF the new chair has not been announced by X date, > THEN the current chair will kick things off as in Spencer's draft. > > Brian > > > On 2009-02-21 10:47, Brian E Carpenter wrote: >> On 2009-02-21 05:45, James Galvin wrote: >>> >>> -- On February 20, 2009 9:43:53 AM -0600 Spencer Dawkins >>> wrote regarding [ietf-nomcom] Two (small) >>> I-Ds now available for discussion -- >>> >>>> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-dawkins-nomcom-dont-wait-00 >>>> .txt. >>> I'm dubious about the success of this. My gut reaction is we're >>> creating more process with little gain. >>> >>> The document says this: >>> >>> This document proposes that the Past NomCom Chair, not the current >>> NomCom Chair, will issue the announcement of open positions and the >>> solicitation for names of volunteers on behalf of the NomCom Chair >>> who will be named by the ISOC President. This allows the search for >>> NomCom Chair and volunteers to proceed in parallel. >>> >>> This is all well and good, and I'm extremely sympathetic to the issue, >>> but if we go down this path then we also need to include process for >>> dealing with the complete set of timing issues. >>> >>> Suppose it takes a really long time to find the new Chair? How much of >>> the process does the old Chair continue to execute? >>> >>> What if a new Chair is not found? On the one hand, we don't deal with >>> this situation now. On the other hand, we do need to deal with it in >>> this case because we have to state a completion scenario. >>> >>> I think what bothers me most is why isn't the solution to his problem >>> that the new Chair has to be identified sooner? >> >> I concur. I watched this particular sausage being made a couple of times >> while I was IETF Chair, and I think this would be a better solution >> in the end. Especially in years when the ISOC President finds it >> difficult >> to find a willing victim; more time will help in that case too. >> >> Brian >> > _______________________________________________ > ietf-nomcom mailing list > ietf-nomcom@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-nomcom > From jmh@joelhalpern.com Sat Feb 21 09:54:44 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietf-nomcom@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietf-nomcom@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 37A663A692D for ; Sat, 21 Feb 2009 09:54:44 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.5 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.5 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.099, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id frOpxPfjJCED for ; Sat, 21 Feb 2009 09:54:43 -0800 (PST) Received: from hermes.mail.tigertech.net (hermes.mail.tigertech.net [64.62.209.72]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BA85D3A6A6D for ; Sat, 21 Feb 2009 09:54:36 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hermes.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7DFD2430699 for ; Sat, 21 Feb 2009 09:54:51 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at hermes.tigertech.net Received: from [10.10.10.100] (pool-71-161-50-192.clppva.btas.verizon.net [71.161.50.192]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by hermes.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 99DFB430698 for ; Sat, 21 Feb 2009 09:54:50 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <49A03FE8.1010901@joelhalpern.com> Date: Sat, 21 Feb 2009 12:54:48 -0500 From: "Joel M. Halpern" User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.19 (Windows/20081209) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: NomComDiscussion References: <499F3A1A.7020205@thinkingcat.com> <72E1E2EDDBD5CBDD92BF837F@eList-eXpress-LLC.local> <26661.1235207788@epsilon.noi.kre.to> In-Reply-To: <26661.1235207788@epsilon.noi.kre.to> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [ietf-nomcom] announcing list of willing candidates X-BeenThere: ietf-nomcom@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions of possible revisions to the NomCom process List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 21 Feb 2009 17:54:44 -0000 There are several different reasons why it would serve the community better if the list of willing nominees were public. The current procedure produces an uneven result. Some people are asked for feedback, and some are not. The people who are asked are provided a shortlist. But the people who are not asked have no information on which to base useful feedback. This distinction does not help the community. The current procedure also requires that the nominating committee come up with a list of people to ask, and what to ask them about. We do our best. However, I am certain that we miss folks who could give us useful feedback about people we are considering. Without being given some sort of list it is very hard for folks to give the nominating committee useful feedback. While some folks may provide one or two lines, some folks go to significant trouble to provide useful feedback. We appreciate this work, and the information that is provided. However, I can not see someone going to that kind of trouble about individuals whom they guess might be being considered. Also, the nominating committee sometimes considers, and has even been known to pick, someone who is not an obvious candidate. In that situation, without a list the committee will not get much feedback about this lesser-known (but potentially very viable) nominee. The current procedure also requires folks to waste their time. The committee is required to include ringers in the list, so as to avoid disclosing who they are actually considering. This means that folks who are putting in effort to provide feedback are working hard to provide feedback we are going to have to ignore. I would personally much prefer not to waste people's time. The reason the feedback is necessary is that the nominating committee often does not personally know the individuals they are considering. Yes, the committee gets questionnaires. Yes, the committee talks to many (not all) of the nominees. Yes, the committee talks to other people about various aspects of the appointments. Note even then that when we ask for those folks opinions on people, we currently have to play games even with them. I wince when I read that part of the interview report. I have been told that the original design of the system, and of the confidentiality handling, was based on the fact that folks who were at lots of meetings would know anyone worth considering. While that may (or may not) have once been true, it is definitely not true now. That is part of why the questionnaires were added several years ago. That is why nomcom feedback collection methods were added. Collecting feedback does not turn the process into an election / popularity contest. It could. But it is the committees job to turn the collecting feedback into useful information about the nominee. And no, you don't do that by counting the yeses and nos. There are drawbacks to disclosing the lists of willing nominees. One drawback is that if nominees are added later, they are probably also made public and that will telegraph certain facts. On the other hand, it at least avoids the distinction where some folks know things, some folks jump to (often incorrect) conclusions, and other folks are just confused. It will probably be important to make really clear to the community that nominees are on the list either because they nominated themselves, or because someone else nominated them. It would be unfortunate if people were criticized just because the nominating committee was considering them for more than one slot. Such multiplicity in the list of willing nominees is quite normal. And I would not expect that public list to include any indication of comments from nominees such as "if you really need me to do X, I am willing, but I would much prefer Y." That kind of information is indeed confidential, and very helpful to the committee. Equally, we need to make very clear to the community and the incumbents that being willing to accept appointment (which is what we are making discussing making public) to a seat does not indicate dissatisfaction with the incumbent. It does not indicate a problem. Rather, it is helping the committee (and thereby the community) make the best choices. It is the committees job to decide if the incumbent should be re-appointed. This needs to be clearly emphasized even if we do not change our procedures. Even if you, as an active person in an area, think the incumbent is doing a good job, please accept nomination anyway. (Personally, if you think you could do the job and can get the time and support, please nominate yourself.) If you like the incumbent, tell us that in feedback. Don't use your own acceptance as that tool. (Whether you choose, in your feedback, to tell the committee whether you think you can do a better job than the incumbent is entirely up to you. It is perfectly sensible to provide feedback that says "persons X,Y, and Q could do a better job than me." Preferably with some explanation of what it is about X, Y, and Q that you find good for the job.) And yes, incumbents who get reappointed have to understand that volunteering for a slot they hold is NOT a criticism. Otherwise, the nominating committee can't do its job. Yours, Joel M. Halpern Robert Elz wrote: > Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2009 18:17:46 -0500 > From: Leslie Daigle > Message-ID: <499F3A1A.7020205@thinkingcat.com> > > | Irrespectively of what one may think about publishing the list of > | willing candidates, there are (at least) 3 issues leftover from the last > | time this was discussed as a WG, that need to be addressed in this draft: > > I agree with all of that, and those issues are strong arguments against > candidate name disclosure. > > Further, I am not sure what the problem is supposed to be? It seems > to be that the nomcom is somehow bothered that it isn't getting feedback > about (some) candidates because no-one knows they are candidates, and > they're seeking to rectify that. Huh??? Not getting feedback about someone > is perhaps better information than getting it. That indicates that no-one > is seriously considering that person as even a possibility for the role in > question. On the other hand, when you get feedback, you have to try and > figure out the motivations and relationships involved to understand how > reliable it is to be taken. Why would anyone want to change this, and do > away with the best possible indicator of community sentiment that is available? > > The only reason I can see for demanding explicit feedback would be if the > nomcom were effectively just counting "votes" - 9 respondents said that person > was great, with just one not so sure, looks good; this one got 4 goodish > replies and 4 not so good, do doubtful, and everyone we asked was opposed > to this other possibility, so the first of them wins... > > That's not the way the nomcom is supposed to choose, or not the way I ever > believed it was supposed to happen. Lists of known candidates, even more > campaigning, ... is just moving further and further towards straight out > voting, which is not really possible with the IETF, and wouldn't produce the > results that are needed anyway. > > kre > > > > _______________________________________________ > ietf-nomcom mailing list > ietf-nomcom@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-nomcom > From jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com Sat Feb 21 18:09:13 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietf-nomcom@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietf-nomcom@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AC7B728C122 for ; Sat, 21 Feb 2009 18:09:13 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 0.807 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.807 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_40=-0.185, DATE_IN_PAST_12_24=0.992] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id fFr++8PfFYN1 for ; Sat, 21 Feb 2009 18:09:12 -0800 (PST) Received: from elasmtp-curtail.atl.sa.earthlink.net (elasmtp-curtail.atl.sa.earthlink.net [209.86.89.64]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 84F803A682E for ; Sat, 21 Feb 2009 18:09:12 -0800 (PST) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=dk20050327; d=ix.netcom.com; b=qSqg8SmsVLbwvu+plpTKua8SLZ4PPKEeM2obWLQlvxLLKa+w3YY0Id4KONL6NWCA; h=Received:Message-ID:Date:From:Organization:X-Mailer:X-Accept-Language:MIME-Version:To:CC:Subject:References:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:X-ELNK-Trace:X-Originating-IP; Received: from [4.227.98.115] (helo=ix.netcom.com) by elasmtp-curtail.atl.sa.earthlink.net with esmtpa (Exim 4.67) (envelope-from ) id 1Lb3mX-0004Dj-Q6; Sat, 21 Feb 2009 21:09:26 -0500 Message-ID: <499F7BD6.5C7AA811@ix.netcom.com> Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2009 19:58:14 -0800 From: "Jeffrey A. Williams" Organization: IDNS and Spokesman for INEGroup X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.8 [en] (Windows NT 5.0; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Spencer Dawkins References: <9A79F9B5EBACD319755D40A0@eList-eXpress-LLC.local><499F24DA.4030302@gmail.com> <499F26F4.6030903@gmail.com> <3DBA1252C9594581A7904E3F9925A92E@china.huawei.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-ELNK-Trace: c8e3929e1e9c87a874cfc7ce3b1ad11381c87f5e519606880f6480df7f888f295d466e19af7ad054350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c X-Originating-IP: 4.227.98.115 Cc: NomComDiscussion Subject: Re: [ietf-nomcom] past nomcom chair starting next process X-BeenThere: ietf-nomcom@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions of possible revisions to the NomCom process List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 22 Feb 2009 02:09:13 -0000 Spencer and all, My suggestion is to eliminate the face-to-face considerations given the current economic situation. It could be reinstated at some time in the future if and when the world economy recovers sufficiently to justify such. Spencer Dawkins wrote: > To the group... > > The first version of this draft did include conditional language ("IF the > new chair has not been announced by X date"). I removed it because I could't > state "X date" unambiguously (the RFC 5078 timeline is based off actual IETF > face-to-face meeting dates, which do move around some from year to year), > and because it seemed less complex to just have the Past NomCom chair do it > every year. > > I can make the changes Brian suggested, but I'd like to know whether other > people support this suggestion. > > Thanks, > > Spencer > > > Sorry to follow up my own post. > > > > It now seems to me we should do both things. > > > > 1. Bring forward the date when the search for the new NomCom chair starts. > > > > 2. State that IF the new chair has not been announced by X date, > > THEN the current chair will kick things off as in Spencer's draft. > > > > Brian > > > > > > On 2009-02-21 10:47, Brian E Carpenter wrote: > >> On 2009-02-21 05:45, James Galvin wrote: > >>> > >>> -- On February 20, 2009 9:43:53 AM -0600 Spencer Dawkins > >>> wrote regarding [ietf-nomcom] Two (small) > >>> I-Ds now available for discussion -- > >>> > >>>> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-dawkins-nomcom-dont-wait-00 > >>>> .txt. > >>> I'm dubious about the success of this. My gut reaction is we're > >>> creating more process with little gain. > >>> > >>> The document says this: > >>> > >>> This document proposes that the Past NomCom Chair, not the current > >>> NomCom Chair, will issue the announcement of open positions and the > >>> solicitation for names of volunteers on behalf of the NomCom Chair > >>> who will be named by the ISOC President. This allows the search for > >>> NomCom Chair and volunteers to proceed in parallel. > >>> > >>> This is all well and good, and I'm extremely sympathetic to the issue, > >>> but if we go down this path then we also need to include process for > >>> dealing with the complete set of timing issues. > >>> > >>> Suppose it takes a really long time to find the new Chair? How much of > >>> the process does the old Chair continue to execute? > >>> > >>> What if a new Chair is not found? On the one hand, we don't deal with > >>> this situation now. On the other hand, we do need to deal with it in > >>> this case because we have to state a completion scenario. > >>> > >>> I think what bothers me most is why isn't the solution to his problem > >>> that the new Chair has to be identified sooner? > >> > >> I concur. I watched this particular sausage being made a couple of times > >> while I was IETF Chair, and I think this would be a better solution > >> in the end. Especially in years when the ISOC President finds it > >> difficult > >> to find a willing victim; more time will help in that case too. > >> > >> Brian > >> > > _______________________________________________ > > ietf-nomcom mailing list > > ietf-nomcom@ietf.org > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-nomcom > > > > _______________________________________________ > ietf-nomcom mailing list > ietf-nomcom@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-nomcom Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 284k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "YES WE CAN!" Barack ( Berry ) Obama "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827 From jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com Sat Feb 21 18:12:17 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietf-nomcom@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietf-nomcom@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8BF1C28C12C for ; Sat, 21 Feb 2009 18:12:17 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 0.9 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.093, BAYES_50=0.001, DATE_IN_PAST_12_24=0.992] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id DZ9qHXsiIWli for ; Sat, 21 Feb 2009 18:12:16 -0800 (PST) Received: from elasmtp-dupuy.atl.sa.earthlink.net (elasmtp-dupuy.atl.sa.earthlink.net [209.86.89.62]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 719B43A682E for ; Sat, 21 Feb 2009 18:12:16 -0800 (PST) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=dk20050327; d=ix.netcom.com; b=ZGMkH6D3UKbWmESY0/ZPur5ftyYvBoEiujiRHbgjGV4M8uQqk4A+/Ng6uIZ+maPn; h=Received:Message-ID:Date:From:Organization:X-Mailer:X-Accept-Language:MIME-Version:To:CC:Subject:References:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:X-ELNK-Trace:X-Originating-IP; Received: from [4.227.98.115] (helo=ix.netcom.com) by elasmtp-dupuy.atl.sa.earthlink.net with esmtpa (Exim 4.67) (envelope-from ) id 1Lb3pX-0002Ry-Pe; Sat, 21 Feb 2009 21:12:32 -0500 Message-ID: <499F7C90.9F6A7E21@ix.netcom.com> Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2009 20:01:20 -0800 From: "Jeffrey A. Williams" Organization: IDNS and Spokesman for INEGroup X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.8 [en] (Windows NT 5.0; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Spencer Dawkins References: <72E1E2EDDBD5CBDD92BF837F@eList-eXpress-LLC.local><499F3A1A.7020205@thinkingcat.com> <51C740C6-2F58-4B5D-BB51-C6C937D5EF35@tcb.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-ELNK-Trace: c8e3929e1e9c87a874cfc7ce3b1ad11381c87f5e5196068892d84ac0952fd6ef77bddd8d25fd9901350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c X-Originating-IP: 4.227.98.115 Cc: NomComDiscussion Subject: Re: [ietf-nomcom] announcing list of willing candidates X-BeenThere: ietf-nomcom@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions of possible revisions to the NomCom process List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 22 Feb 2009 02:12:17 -0000 Spencer and all, I also agree. What is the point that is seemingly being attempted to front end load whom might be "Appropriate" candidates? Is there some need for engaging in social engineering of this sort? If so, why? Spencer Dawkins wrote: > I'm probably just being dense here, but I am confused... > > I agree with Leslie's point here: > > >> As a general observation, I believe the draft conflates the issues of: > >> > >> . being public about the slate of willing volunteers; and > >> . soliciting input from the entire community (not just the set > >> of people selected by a given NomCom) > >> > >> and concludes that the accurate list should be published to the entire > >> community. These are actually separate issues, and a balanced draft > >> should separate the possible outcomes, in my opinion. > > As did Danny: > > > Yeah, I think that's a fair point, I hope Spencer can craft > > text to accurately capture it. > > Are you guys thinking of two ISSUES here, or two OUTCOMES here? I'm having a > hard time figuring out how we ask the entire community without telling them > the entire slate - or were you thinking that you would (for example) ask > people to go to a web page that would offer each respondent a SUBSET of > names under consideration, so that no one sees the entire slate? > > Cluelessly yours (sorry!), > > Spencer > > _______________________________________________ > ietf-nomcom mailing list > ietf-nomcom@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-nomcom Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 284k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "YES WE CAN!" Barack ( Berry ) Obama "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827 From riw@cisco.com Mon Feb 23 08:30:06 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietf-nomcom@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietf-nomcom@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 532663A698F for ; Mon, 23 Feb 2009 08:30:06 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id UiFUe976WU40 for ; Mon, 23 Feb 2009 08:30:05 -0800 (PST) Received: from rtp-iport-2.cisco.com (rtp-iport-2.cisco.com [64.102.122.149]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CF40F3A6874 for ; Mon, 23 Feb 2009 08:30:04 -0800 (PST) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.38,254,1233532800"; d="scan'208";a="38095284" Received: from rtp-dkim-2.cisco.com ([64.102.121.159]) by rtp-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 23 Feb 2009 16:30:22 +0000 Received: from rtp-core-2.cisco.com (rtp-core-2.cisco.com [64.102.124.13]) by rtp-dkim-2.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id n1NGUMeq017265; Mon, 23 Feb 2009 11:30:22 -0500 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (rtp-vpn6-1568.cisco.com [10.82.254.38]) by rtp-core-2.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id n1NGUMAh023940; Mon, 23 Feb 2009 16:30:22 GMT Message-ID: <49A2CF14.6080507@cisco.com> Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2009 11:30:12 -0500 From: Russ White User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.19 (Windows/20081209) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Robert Elz References: <499F3A1A.7020205@thinkingcat.com> <72E1E2EDDBD5CBDD92BF837F@eList-eXpress-LLC.local> <26661.1235207788@epsilon.noi.kre.to> In-Reply-To: <26661.1235207788@epsilon.noi.kre.to> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.95.7 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; l=2201; t=1235406622; x=1236270622; c=relaxed/simple; s=rtpdkim2001; h=Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; d=cisco.com; i=riw@cisco.com; z=From:=20Russ=20White=20 |Subject:=20Re=3A=20[ietf-nomcom]=20announcing=20list=20of= 20willing=20candidates |Sender:=20 |To:=20Robert=20Elz=20; bh=JYX1gL0Gd3NkdHyYrKeWplDiJ/CnowAty+lfIKDK6NM=; b=C/D+Dsb2STysq7BAhIPP816DsfpxiPstmVtH0GLGeLCfuC/wxcwT+/KSZI JrT8mSGiz5l/FD9ZnkOPs36KwZ5kiBKYoUWKWqLB/nEHIhL6/hJk5XHyllM0 4m/21PRiZO; Authentication-Results: rtp-dkim-2; header.From=riw@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/rtpdkim2001 verified; ); Cc: NomComDiscussion Subject: Re: [ietf-nomcom] announcing list of willing candidates X-BeenThere: ietf-nomcom@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions of possible revisions to the NomCom process List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2009 16:30:06 -0000 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 > Further, I am not sure what the problem is supposed to be? There are several problems.... For instance: 1. Most people try to guess who the "ringers" are, and tune their feedback around who those people are. Most people are wrong in their guesses, hence, their feedback isn't always as useful as it could be. And honestly, folks, who doesn't lobby with their feedback? Isn't that what feedback is? 2. When there is a second call for candidates, the entire list isn't released. People become doubly confused at this point, with some people thinking someone not on the list who was previously on the list must have been a "ringer," or is no longer under consideration, etc, etc. I don't really see what's trying to be protected against by holding the list of serious candidates "private." That people might fear retribution? As Danny said, if this is a problem, we need some adults. That people will lobby? People are already lobbying, so that cat is already out of the bag. In fact, part of the reason people try to guess the "ringers" is to effectively lobby in a way that isn't obvious. That people might be embarrassed? And the entire "second round nominations" doesn't embarrass people already, in a way that's worse than just opening the list would be? That the list might not contain the best possible candidates? How does making the list private help there? If the list were public, people might actually have incentive to put their name in the ring. Otherwise, they can assume it's being taken care of, and go on about their business. IMHO, go to an open list. Go to a firm date for nominations, and get rid of the "second round of nominations" calls for candidates when the nomcom is unhappy with all the available options. Lets get all the options on the table once, and only once, and make the best decision possible at that point. :-) Russ -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iEYEARECAAYFAkmizxQACgkQER27sUhU9OQQgwCfTcOpYCQc3gVXC+7cbqcKxDlE z3sAnRYvivaNmY2yuAoMaNTQjbb0t5tO =lKEA -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From leslie@thinkingcat.com Mon Feb 23 10:45:33 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietf-nomcom@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietf-nomcom@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1C08028C101 for ; Mon, 23 Feb 2009 10:45:33 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, GB_I_LETTER=-2] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id tPOuOciv8bkB for ; Mon, 23 Feb 2009 10:45:32 -0800 (PST) Received: from zeke.ecotroph.net (zeke.ecotroph.net [70.164.19.155]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EB13228C0FF for ; Mon, 23 Feb 2009 10:45:28 -0800 (PST) Received: from beethoven.local ([::ffff:209.183.196.229]) (AUTH: PLAIN leslie, SSL: TLSv1/SSLv3,256bits,AES256-SHA) by zeke.ecotroph.net with esmtp; Mon, 23 Feb 2009 13:45:45 -0500 id 0158810F.49A2EED9.00002106 Message-ID: <49A2EED1.6000506@thinkingcat.com> Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2009 13:45:37 -0500 From: Leslie Daigle User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.19 (Macintosh/20081209) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Danny McPherson References: <72E1E2EDDBD5CBDD92BF837F@eList-eXpress-LLC.local> <499F3A1A.7020205@thinkingcat.com> <51C740C6-2F58-4B5D-BB51-C6C937D5EF35@tcb.net> In-Reply-To: <51C740C6-2F58-4B5D-BB51-C6C937D5EF35@tcb.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: NomComDiscussion Subject: Re: [ietf-nomcom] announcing list of willing candidates X-BeenThere: ietf-nomcom@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions of possible revisions to the NomCom process List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2009 18:45:33 -0000 Hi, Noting that I said the draft should address these issues (even if it is to document why they are no longer applicable or should be moved on from), some further comments in-line: Danny McPherson wrote: > > On Feb 20, 2009, at 4:17 PM, Leslie Daigle wrote: > >> >> Irrespectively of what one may think about publishing the list of >> willing candidates, there are (at least) 3 issues leftover from the >> last time this was discussed as a WG, that need to be addressed in >> this draft: >> >> 1/ Affecting the willingness of candidates. >> >> It has been said that candidates will not stand up and visibly >> challenge incumbents, who are (after all) still making decisions >> about the work they are presumably doing within the Area. > > Time for folks to grow up here :-) It is true that it is possible people should change opinions here (whether or not that entails "growing up"). But, given that it has been an issue in the past, acknowledging that it has been considered and is believed to be a worthwhile tradeoff would make a stronger document. > >> 2/ Campaigning/lobbying >> >> Once it is confirmed public knowledge who is willing to take up a >> particular role, what will be the ground rules for public lobbying? >> (Either by the person themselves, or their supporters)? Or, should >> that be embraced directly, and is there more work to be done to >> specify what sort of statements the candidates should make publicly? > > It happens privately today, at least it's out on the table. First, it's a _very_ different dynamic. Second, a credible treatment of the change in dynamic would include whether or not it is appropriate, or even expected, to see letters of support or statements of intent on the IETF mailing list, or somewhere/anywhere else. > >> 3/ Flexibility >> >> NomComs sometimes find that their lists of willing candidates do not >> include the best candidate for the job, generally after the stated >> deadline for accepting nominations. In the past, arms have been >> twisted, funding has been found, at very late dates. This has even >> been for the better of the IETF as a whole. This draft should >> address whether that will still be feasible, and under what conditions >> (or why the tradeoff is worth it). > > I presume this is one of those things that this draft enables > to remain up to the processes of the nomcom itself, and would > think any additional prescriptive text here would be > undesirable. Sorry, no. If the point is to make all the candidates visible to the community to comment on, then how, exactly, shall the NomCom "flexibly" appoint someone that is identified after the end of nominations? Expectations need to be set -- should the community expect to see all candidates under decision to provide comment, for some period of time in advance? Or to see some of the candidates some of the time? (And how quickly do you think that will generate consternation?). Leslie. > >> As a general observation, I believe the draft conflates the issues of: >> >> . being public about the slate of willing volunteers; and >> . soliciting input from the entire community (not just the set >> of people selected by a given NomCom) >> >> and concludes that the accurate list should be published to the entire >> community. These are actually separate issues, and a balanced draft >> should separate the possible outcomes, in my opinion. > > Yeah, I think that's a fair point, I hope Spencer can craft > text to accurately capture it. > >> Thanks, >> Leslie. >> (And, no, I've not ever been reluctant to state my willingness/not for >> a given position, but if we're going to have the discussion, I believe >> we have to have the WHOLE discussion). > > Yep! > > -danny > _______________________________________________ > ietf-nomcom mailing list > ietf-nomcom@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-nomcom -- ------------------------------------------------------------------- "Reality: Yours to discover." -- ThinkingCat Leslie Daigle leslie@thinkingcat.com ------------------------------------------------------------------- From leslie@thinkingcat.com Mon Feb 23 10:48:46 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietf-nomcom@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietf-nomcom@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 02A2A3A6921 for ; Mon, 23 Feb 2009 10:48:46 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.099 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.099 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.500, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id yO0hhrTWfdLi for ; Mon, 23 Feb 2009 10:48:45 -0800 (PST) Received: from zeke.ecotroph.net (zeke.ecotroph.net [70.164.19.155]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EBD743A68B8 for ; Mon, 23 Feb 2009 10:48:44 -0800 (PST) Received: from beethoven.local ([::ffff:209.183.196.229]) (AUTH: PLAIN leslie, SSL: TLSv1/SSLv3,256bits,AES256-SHA) by zeke.ecotroph.net with esmtp; Mon, 23 Feb 2009 13:49:01 -0500 id 01588110.49A2EF9D.000022D9 Message-ID: <49A2EF95.4020404@thinkingcat.com> Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2009 13:48:53 -0500 From: Leslie Daigle User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.19 (Macintosh/20081209) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Spencer Dawkins References: <72E1E2EDDBD5CBDD92BF837F@eList-eXpress-LLC.local><499F3A1A.7020205@thinkingcat.com> <51C740C6-2F58-4B5D-BB51-C6C937D5EF35@tcb.net> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: NomComDiscussion Subject: Re: [ietf-nomcom] announcing list of willing candidates X-BeenThere: ietf-nomcom@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions of possible revisions to the NomCom process List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2009 18:48:46 -0000 Spencer, Spencer Dawkins wrote: > I'm probably just being dense here, but I am confused... > > I agree with Leslie's point here: > >>> As a general observation, I believe the draft conflates the issues of: >>> >>> . being public about the slate of willing volunteers; and >>> . soliciting input from the entire community (not just the set >>> of people selected by a given NomCom) >>> >>> and concludes that the accurate list should be published to the >>> entire community. These are actually separate issues, and a >>> balanced draft should separate the possible outcomes, in my opinion. > > As did Danny: > >> Yeah, I think that's a fair point, I hope Spencer can craft >> text to accurately capture it. > > Are you guys thinking of two ISSUES here, or two OUTCOMES here? I'm > having a hard time figuring out how we ask the entire community without > telling them the entire slate - or were you thinking that you would (for > example) ask people to go to a web page that would offer each respondent > a SUBSET of names under consideration, so that no one sees the entire > slate? There are 2 issues, that can be addressed with different outcomes: Issue 1: getting a broad enough set of feedback -- which means soliciting feedback from the entire community, based on some representation of the short list (which can include ringers) Issue 2: being accurate about the list of willing candidates (no ringers), irrespective of whether that is to solicit feedback from the entire community or just some NomCom-identified subset of hte community Your draft concludes that publishing the list with ringers would waste cycles of IETF participants, which is true. But, if the IETF community decided it still doesn't want to have a public list of only the list of willing volunteers, it would remain an option. Leslie. > > Cluelessly yours (sorry!), > > Spencer > > _______________________________________________ > ietf-nomcom mailing list > ietf-nomcom@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-nomcom -- ------------------------------------------------------------------- "Reality: Yours to discover." -- ThinkingCat Leslie Daigle leslie@thinkingcat.com ------------------------------------------------------------------- From jmh@joelhalpern.com Mon Feb 23 12:02:45 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietf-nomcom@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietf-nomcom@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5BB2228C1A2 for ; Mon, 23 Feb 2009 12:02:45 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.508 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.508 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.091, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id psNZf1940A0K for ; Mon, 23 Feb 2009 12:02:44 -0800 (PST) Received: from hermes.mail.tigertech.net (hermes.mail.tigertech.net [64.62.209.72]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7957A28C1D8 for ; Mon, 23 Feb 2009 12:02:12 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hermes.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 095B943032A; Mon, 23 Feb 2009 12:02:31 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at hermes.tigertech.net Received: from [10.10.10.100] (pool-71-161-50-192.clppva.btas.verizon.net [71.161.50.192]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by hermes.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id DC1984302A2; Mon, 23 Feb 2009 12:02:29 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <49A300D3.3060501@joelhalpern.com> Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2009 15:02:27 -0500 From: "Joel M. Halpern" User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.19 (Windows/20081209) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Leslie Daigle References: <72E1E2EDDBD5CBDD92BF837F@eList-eXpress-LLC.local> <499F3A1A.7020205@thinkingcat.com> <51C740C6-2F58-4B5D-BB51-C6C937D5EF35@tcb.net> <49A2EED1.6000506@thinkingcat.com> In-Reply-To: <49A2EED1.6000506@thinkingcat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: NomComDiscussion Subject: Re: [ietf-nomcom] announcing list of willing candidates X-BeenThere: ietf-nomcom@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions of possible revisions to the NomCom process List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2009 20:02:45 -0000 I would actually agree with Leslie on the point below. If we say that the list of willing nominees is public, then we better mean it. That can mean a hard cutoff. It can also mean that the nomcom can go twist arms, and then add those names to the visible list. But we should not be unclear which of those two we intend. While both paths are defensible, I think we have to explicitly pick one. My own opinion is that we are better off allowing the nomcom to add names. (including allowing the nomcom to reopen the list to the community to add names, as already happens too often for happiness.) Things happen. Preventing such additions would be a bad idea. Joel PS: As a minor note, getting credible ringers who are willing and able to be listed, but not willing and able to serve, is harder than it looks. And the ringer-pool leaks like a sieve because folks ask questions of people they know. So the whole ringer procedure is difficult and much less than effective. That's why I want both parts fixed. (I have no objection to describing it as two issues, as long as they both get fixed. Heck, I don't care if someone manages to describe it as 7 issues, as long as it gets fixed ASAP.) Leslie Daigle wrote: > Hi, > > Noting that I said the draft should address these issues (even if it is > to document why they are no longer applicable or should be moved on > from), some further comments in-line: > > > Danny McPherson wrote: >> >> On Feb 20, 2009, at 4:17 PM, Leslie Daigle wrote: ... >>> 3/ Flexibility >>> >>> NomComs sometimes find that their lists of willing candidates do not >>> include the best candidate for the job, generally after the stated >>> deadline for accepting nominations. In the past, arms have been >>> twisted, funding has been found, at very late dates. This has even >>> been for the better of the IETF as a whole. This draft should >>> address whether that will still be feasible, and under what >>> conditions (or why the tradeoff is worth it). >> >> I presume this is one of those things that this draft enables >> to remain up to the processes of the nomcom itself, and would >> think any additional prescriptive text here would be >> undesirable. > > > Sorry, no. If the point is to make all the candidates visible to the > community to comment on, then how, exactly, shall the NomCom "flexibly" > appoint someone that is identified after the end of nominations? > > > Expectations need to be set -- should the community expect to see all > candidates under decision to provide comment, for some period of time in > advance? Or to see some of the candidates some of the time? (And how > quickly do you think that will generate consternation?). > > > > Leslie. From huitema@windows.microsoft.com Mon Feb 23 12:18:15 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietf-nomcom@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietf-nomcom@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 948B33A691D for ; Mon, 23 Feb 2009 12:18:15 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -110.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-110.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id wAm104L+bMNn for ; Mon, 23 Feb 2009 12:18:14 -0800 (PST) Received: from smtp.microsoft.com (smtp.microsoft.com [131.107.115.214]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B82543A67E2 for ; Mon, 23 Feb 2009 12:18:14 -0800 (PST) Received: from tk5-exhub-c104.redmond.corp.microsoft.com (157.54.88.97) by TK5-EXGWY-E803.partners.extranet.microsoft.com (10.251.56.169) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.2.99.4; Mon, 23 Feb 2009 12:18:32 -0800 Received: from tk5-exmlt-w601.wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.microsoft.com (157.54.18.32) by tk5-exhub-c104.redmond.corp.microsoft.com (157.54.88.97) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 8.2.99.4; Mon, 23 Feb 2009 12:18:32 -0800 Received: from NA-EXMSG-W601.wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.microsoft.com ([fe80::75be:c82f:ae04:55bf]) by tk5-exmlt-w601.wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.microsoft.com ([157.54.18.32]) with mapi; Mon, 23 Feb 2009 12:20:24 -0800 From: Christian Huitema To: "Joel M. Halpern" , Leslie Daigle Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2009 12:18:31 -0800 Thread-Topic: [ietf-nomcom] announcing list of willing candidates Thread-Index: AcmV8j3X8NMq25TFTMWduL+uX83guwAASqVA Message-ID: <8EFB68EAE061884A8517F2A755E8B60A19DAFCB386@NA-EXMSG-W601.wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.microsoft.com> References: <72E1E2EDDBD5CBDD92BF837F@eList-eXpress-LLC.local> <499F3A1A.7020205@thinkingcat.com> <51C740C6-2F58-4B5D-BB51-C6C937D5EF35@tcb.net> <49A2EED1.6000506@thinkingcat.com> <49A300D3.3060501@joelhalpern.com> In-Reply-To: <49A300D3.3060501@joelhalpern.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: NomComDiscussion Subject: Re: [ietf-nomcom] announcing list of willing candidates X-BeenThere: ietf-nomcom@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions of possible revisions to the NomCom process List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2009 20:18:15 -0000 > PS: As a minor note, getting credible ringers who are willing and able > to be listed, but not willing and able to serve, is harder than it > looks. And the ringer-pool leaks like a sieve because folks ask > questions of people they know. So the whole ringer procedure is > difficult and much less than effective. That's why I want both parts > fixed. (I have no objection to describing it as two issues, as long as > they both get fixed. Heck, I don't care if someone manages to describe > it as 7 issues, as long as it gets fixed ASAP.) For many potential candidates, " willing and able to serve" includes "I hav= e checked with my boss and he is OK". IESG positions amount to at least a h= alftime job, so many bosses take some convincing before they authorize that= . Now, how many do you believe are willing to engage in that kind of negoti= ation without a fairly good chance of being actually nominated? -- Christian Huitema From riw@cisco.com Mon Feb 23 12:19:38 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietf-nomcom@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietf-nomcom@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7F56B3A68BA for ; Mon, 23 Feb 2009 12:19:38 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Ne50oL8tX9pz for ; Mon, 23 Feb 2009 12:19:37 -0800 (PST) Received: from rtp-iport-2.cisco.com (rtp-iport-2.cisco.com [64.102.122.149]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 528763A67E2 for ; Mon, 23 Feb 2009 12:19:37 -0800 (PST) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.38,255,1233532800"; d="scan'208";a="38128871" Received: from rtp-dkim-2.cisco.com ([64.102.121.159]) by rtp-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 23 Feb 2009 20:19:55 +0000 Received: from rtp-core-1.cisco.com (rtp-core-1.cisco.com [64.102.124.12]) by rtp-dkim-2.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id n1NKJsjb028502; Mon, 23 Feb 2009 15:19:54 -0500 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (rtp-vpn6-197.cisco.com [10.82.248.197]) by rtp-core-1.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id n1NKJsgZ005449; Mon, 23 Feb 2009 20:19:54 GMT Message-ID: <49A304E1.7060305@cisco.com> Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2009 15:19:45 -0500 From: Russ White User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.19 (Windows/20081209) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Joel M. Halpern" References: <72E1E2EDDBD5CBDD92BF837F@eList-eXpress-LLC.local> <499F3A1A.7020205@thinkingcat.com> <51C740C6-2F58-4B5D-BB51-C6C937D5EF35@tcb.net> <49A2EED1.6000506@thinkingcat.com> <49A300D3.3060501@joelhalpern.com> In-Reply-To: <49A300D3.3060501@joelhalpern.com> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.95.7 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; l=2510; t=1235420394; x=1236284394; c=relaxed/simple; s=rtpdkim2001; h=Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; d=cisco.com; i=riw@cisco.com; z=From:=20Russ=20White=20 |Subject:=20Re=3A=20[ietf-nomcom]=20announcing=20list=20of= 20willing=20candidates |Sender:=20 |To:=20=22Joel=20M.=20Halpern=22=20; bh=U39nxD/D0V/Nw6hspRpYLit8Jrjo/7j9loegec2dwEQ=; b=rtH3mSpW8W8O3wTcmYRUEZg9NFRQp4K5LHXBkSmG9EunzdIQ3ngyjRt/UO ixrazZsFYq2cf7I9dMj2QV2rxQnygqOT5zAHbfYCyKOocXW/po9O2hM1EXmu j3p14dby7o; Authentication-Results: rtp-dkim-2; header.From=riw@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/rtpdkim2001 verified; ); Cc: NomComDiscussion Subject: Re: [ietf-nomcom] announcing list of willing candidates X-BeenThere: ietf-nomcom@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions of possible revisions to the NomCom process List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2009 20:19:38 -0000 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 > I would actually agree with Leslie on the point below. > If we say that the list of willing nominees is public, then we better > mean it. > That can mean a hard cutoff. And I would agree with a hard cutoff. > It can also mean that the nomcom can go twist arms, and then add those > names to the visible list. IMHO, the process of twisting arms should occur before the cutoff. There is thinking within every nomcom I've served on that once the nomcom goes and twists arms, all previous candidates should be disregarded, regardless of the reason (a change in area a may cause a request for more names in area b, discounting everyone originally on the list in area a for no reason other than "that's an old name"). > My own opinion is that we are better off allowing the nomcom to add > names. (including allowing the nomcom to reopen the list to the > community to add names, as already happens too often for happiness.) > Things happen. Preventing such additions would be a bad idea. The solution to "things happen" is to have a second viable slate chosen in case something happens before the slate is actually announced and approved all the way through the process. If the nomcom finds itself with a single viable candidate, then the arm twisting should take place before making a selection. When one "seat" falls through, a lot of work is pushed into a much shorter time frame, almost guaranteeing a less thought out decision to be made. Adding the process of "twisting arms," and trying to redo multiple decisions because people consider multiple decisions "linked" in some way (which I also consider broken, BTW), only makes it virtually impossible to think a reasonable, well thought out decision is going to come out of the process. When people are rushed, they revert to simple rules to make decisions. "No more than x people from any given company," or "I prefer researchers over manufacturers," or "Anybody but x!" Any time we can avoid these "binary states," deal with real information, and try to do deep and introspective thinking on what's really required, verses what's available, the better the IETF will be served in the long term. :-) Russ -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iEYEARECAAYFAkmjBOAACgkQER27sUhU9OSyqgCg7ny/DJ4thB+XBSx+1CmIDY6Q irMAoNh21GikpGLbQeSEpfAItMu3zzSY =oTJC -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com Tue Feb 24 04:56:03 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietf-nomcom@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietf-nomcom@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9A7D63A6933 for ; Tue, 24 Feb 2009 04:56:03 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.581 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.581 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.399, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_SORBS_WEB=0.619] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 5lzNSin+ET94 for ; Tue, 24 Feb 2009 04:56:02 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-gx0-f174.google.com (mail-gx0-f174.google.com [209.85.217.174]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B669D3A691D for ; Tue, 24 Feb 2009 04:55:59 -0800 (PST) Received: by gxk22 with SMTP id 22so6583619gxk.13 for ; Tue, 24 Feb 2009 04:56:17 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from :organization:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject:references :in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=tZLbFQRTERSXJcXfTumxUf7N8fxZvU+dLOkbLD04SEM=; b=sNI3POieKESlQ9AHLoHGBDGbMntRtYpmW3LyJN+ulq8SYGKz3vY5HJOauP0jmKdWNz AOsEcPAdWl0MvyWls4Dm3SLcT0CCwTpo1O4SJsADDFXBRzKq2keUv3CwuqXlhDQlND9e QMFY/Q8wBXLcJU5NSyLMzKew1zXsLhZchD/Kk= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:organization:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc :subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; b=na2Mr9FgXE2q4MseMT4RoBxWSDilecaLR+520m/SAKxsyvXVGQg+TK/GFT6NeXDB7t rhVMn7YjJrlckOEW4vz6yaM4yrbpOhamoffUQGdMARHzEGU4s6k1iX3xOW8CJpD4+3oj Or40vvELm6FfFVJaYK7goq7xq4Ohfrdzo3E04= Received: by 10.110.84.3 with SMTP id h3mr7659738tib.20.1235480175959; Tue, 24 Feb 2009 04:56:15 -0800 (PST) Received: from ?172.31.8.165? ([222.128.247.2]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id u8sm590691tia.30.2009.02.24.04.56.13 (version=SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Tue, 24 Feb 2009 04:56:15 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <49A3EE6B.4000305@gmail.com> Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2009 01:56:11 +1300 From: Brian E Carpenter Organization: University of Auckland User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.6 (Windows/20070728) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Russ White References: <72E1E2EDDBD5CBDD92BF837F@eList-eXpress-LLC.local> <499F3A1A.7020205@thinkingcat.com> <51C740C6-2F58-4B5D-BB51-C6C937D5EF35@tcb.net> <49A2EED1.6000506@thinkingcat.com> <49A300D3.3060501@joelhalpern.com> <49A304E1.7060305@cisco.com> In-Reply-To: <49A304E1.7060305@cisco.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: NomComDiscussion Subject: Re: [ietf-nomcom] announcing list of willing candidates X-BeenThere: ietf-nomcom@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions of possible revisions to the NomCom process List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2009 12:56:03 -0000 On 2009-02-24 09:19, Russ White wrote: ... >> My own opinion is that we are better off allowing the nomcom to add >> names. (including allowing the nomcom to reopen the list to the >> community to add names, as already happens too often for happiness.) >> Things happen. Preventing such additions would be a bad idea. > > The solution to "things happen" is to have a second viable slate chosen > in case something happens before the slate is actually announced and > approved all the way through the process. If the nomcom finds itself > with a single viable candidate, then the arm twisting should take place > before making a selection. That might be the solution to some "things" that might happen, but there might be other happenings for which this might not work. So I think any rule change needs to be written with a clearly defined escape route. If the procedure leads to an unexpected failure mode such as ending up with zero candidates, then the NomCom is authorized to reopen nominations, republish a list, etc. If we don't give NomCom that discretion, I bet we'll regret it. As for the general principle of publishing the list, it was suggested to me today (in Beijing) that being nominated, even if not selected, may be well viewed as an honour. (But that doesn't apply to self- nominations, which raises yet another angle - should self-nominations be identified in the list?) Brian From riw@cisco.com Tue Feb 24 05:42:19 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietf-nomcom@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietf-nomcom@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F41B03A6914 for ; Tue, 24 Feb 2009 05:42:18 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id RWFf6-ZubzU0 for ; Tue, 24 Feb 2009 05:42:18 -0800 (PST) Received: from rtp-iport-1.cisco.com (rtp-iport-1.cisco.com [64.102.122.148]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C95FE3A67A2 for ; Tue, 24 Feb 2009 05:42:17 -0800 (PST) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.38,259,1233532800"; d="scan'208";a="38245289" Received: from rtp-dkim-2.cisco.com ([64.102.121.159]) by rtp-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 24 Feb 2009 13:42:36 +0000 Received: from rtp-core-1.cisco.com (rtp-core-1.cisco.com [64.102.124.12]) by rtp-dkim-2.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id n1ODgaOv030059; Tue, 24 Feb 2009 08:42:36 -0500 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (rtp-vpn6-1247.cisco.com [10.82.252.227]) by rtp-core-1.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id n1ODgaRO027720; Tue, 24 Feb 2009 13:42:36 GMT Message-ID: <49A3F940.6020908@cisco.com> Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2009 08:42:24 -0500 From: Russ White User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.19 (Windows/20081209) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Brian E Carpenter References: <72E1E2EDDBD5CBDD92BF837F@eList-eXpress-LLC.local> <499F3A1A.7020205@thinkingcat.com> <51C740C6-2F58-4B5D-BB51-C6C937D5EF35@tcb.net> <49A2EED1.6000506@thinkingcat.com> <49A300D3.3060501@joelhalpern.com> <49A304E1.7060305@cisco.com> <49A3EE6B.4000305@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <49A3EE6B.4000305@gmail.com> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.95.7 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; l=2708; t=1235482956; x=1236346956; c=relaxed/simple; s=rtpdkim2001; h=Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; d=cisco.com; i=riw@cisco.com; z=From:=20Russ=20White=20 |Subject:=20Re=3A=20[ietf-nomcom]=20announcing=20list=20of= 20willing=20candidates |Sender:=20 |To:=20Brian=20E=20Carpenter=20; bh=W9Q9BtswimYLfVBZAKzwxez0HbPgucxztW8EaExN4uY=; b=DNeYU96QYN0OgoCsobJmxlJk8K/tq7GQgwLnJmYTjOqUPYMQlhLsaRFIqh H7+8ywRTFOvg1wdhk91qWVT1KipR1WSunQ4njYd7zWcjyWqiAJDNbdgP1wHc inkgW4UiC0; Authentication-Results: rtp-dkim-2; header.From=riw@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/rtpdkim2001 verified; ); Cc: NomComDiscussion Subject: Re: [ietf-nomcom] announcing list of willing candidates X-BeenThere: ietf-nomcom@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions of possible revisions to the NomCom process List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2009 13:42:19 -0000 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 >>> My own opinion is that we are better off allowing the nomcom to add >>> names. (including allowing the nomcom to reopen the list to the >>> community to add names, as already happens too often for happiness.) >>> Things happen. Preventing such additions would be a bad idea. >> The solution to "things happen" is to have a second viable slate chosen >> in case something happens before the slate is actually announced and >> approved all the way through the process. If the nomcom finds itself >> with a single viable candidate, then the arm twisting should take place >> before making a selection. > > That might be the solution to some "things" that might happen, but > there might be other happenings for which this might not work. So I > think any rule change needs to be written with a clearly defined > escape route. If the procedure leads to an unexpected failure mode > such as ending up with zero candidates, then the NomCom is authorized > to reopen nominations, republish a list, etc. If we don't give > NomCom that discretion, I bet we'll regret it. I would agree--but that it should be used as a last resort. We have had far too much of "oh, none of these candidates work, lets go beat the bushes," followed by a mad dash to interview, and then a mad run to choose under the deadline, holding up of slates, etc. Maybe we should appoint a "pre-nomcom arm twisting committee" to convince good people to accept nominations, or a "pre-nominating committe," or some such. IMHO, we are rushing decisions, which is never a good thing. > As for the general principle of publishing the list, it was suggested > to me today (in Beijing) that being nominated, even if not selected, > may be well viewed as an honour. (But that doesn't apply to self- > nominations, which raises yet another angle - should self-nominations > be identified in the list?) I don't see any problem with marking out self-nominations. And I would agree that it's an honor to be nominated. There are a lot of sides to the "public list" question, but I don't see the problems outweighing the benefits. For instance, if everyone knew who was being nominated, they would have a better feel for the level of expertise, etc, on the current list. This might actually help bring in more nominees, and reduce the amount of "arm twisting" that needs to go on in the background. :-) Russ -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iEYEARECAAYFAkmj+UAACgkQER27sUhU9OQ/VACgj23cpxzmxGFHI+FtwqZbDUV6 qMMAniyYy25KEehavU6XxwRPMC1Abu7n =qUJe -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From joel@stevecrocker.com Tue Feb 24 05:51:57 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietf-nomcom@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietf-nomcom@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6B02B3A6966 for ; Tue, 24 Feb 2009 05:51:57 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id rqbfBBGyPMV6 for ; Tue, 24 Feb 2009 05:51:56 -0800 (PST) Received: from elasmtp-mealy.atl.sa.earthlink.net (elasmtp-mealy.atl.sa.earthlink.net [209.86.89.69]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AFA573A694A for ; Tue, 24 Feb 2009 05:51:56 -0800 (PST) Received: from [71.161.50.192] (helo=[10.10.10.100]) by elasmtp-mealy.atl.sa.earthlink.net with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.67) (envelope-from ) id 1Lbxhn-0004Ao-Li for ietf-nomcom@ietf.org; Tue, 24 Feb 2009 08:52:15 -0500 Message-ID: <49A3FB8D.90406@stevecrocker.com> Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2009 08:52:13 -0500 From: "Joel M. Halpern" User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.19 (Windows/20081209) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: NomComDiscussion References: <72E1E2EDDBD5CBDD92BF837F@eList-eXpress-LLC.local> <499F3A1A.7020205@thinkingcat.com> <51C740C6-2F58-4B5D-BB51-C6C937D5EF35@tcb.net> <49A2EED1.6000506@thinkingcat.com> <49A300D3.3060501@joelhalpern.com> <49A304E1.7060305@cisco.com> <49A3EE6B.4000305@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <49A3EE6B.4000305@gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-ELNK-Trace: 9f083ca8aeb2d326d5a073bfd238dd844d2b10475b5711207b4c0a5bad500c0ae9274f82297fa3c6806aff0105fd555a350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c X-Originating-IP: 71.161.50.192 Subject: Re: [ietf-nomcom] announcing list of willing candidates X-BeenThere: ietf-nomcom@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions of possible revisions to the NomCom process List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2009 13:51:57 -0000 I had assumed that the source of the nominations was confidential. As such, for self-nominations, the fact that it was a self-nomination would be confidential. Given that it is important to get all the reasoanbly qualified people into the pool, this seems like the right path to me. Joel Brian E Carpenter wrote: ... > As for the general principle of publishing the list, it was suggested > to me today (in Beijing) that being nominated, even if not selected, > may be well viewed as an honour. (But that doesn't apply to self- > nominations, which raises yet another angle - should self-nominations > be identified in the list?) > > Brian From leslie@thinkingcat.com Tue Feb 24 09:01:39 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietf-nomcom@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietf-nomcom@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1169D3A69EF for ; Tue, 24 Feb 2009 09:01:39 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.849 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.849 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.250, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id zs1Ul+7QkPde for ; Tue, 24 Feb 2009 09:01:38 -0800 (PST) Received: from zeke.ecotroph.net (zeke.ecotroph.net [70.164.19.155]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 44C283A6977 for ; Tue, 24 Feb 2009 09:01:38 -0800 (PST) Received: from beethoven.local ([::ffff:209.183.196.229]) (AUTH: PLAIN leslie, SSL: TLSv1/SSLv3,256bits,AES256-SHA) by zeke.ecotroph.net with esmtp; Tue, 24 Feb 2009 12:01:55 -0500 id 0158837F.49A42804.00000818 Message-ID: <49A427FA.1050406@thinkingcat.com> Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2009 12:01:46 -0500 From: Leslie Daigle User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.19 (Macintosh/20081209) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Russ White References: <72E1E2EDDBD5CBDD92BF837F@eList-eXpress-LLC.local> <499F3A1A.7020205@thinkingcat.com> <51C740C6-2F58-4B5D-BB51-C6C937D5EF35@tcb.net> <49A2EED1.6000506@thinkingcat.com> <49A300D3.3060501@joelhalpern.com> <49A304E1.7060305@cisco.com> <49A3EE6B.4000305@gmail.com> <49A3F940.6020908@cisco.com> In-Reply-To: <49A3F940.6020908@cisco.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: NomComDiscussion Subject: Re: [ietf-nomcom] announcing list of willing candidates X-BeenThere: ietf-nomcom@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions of possible revisions to the NomCom process List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2009 17:01:39 -0000 Russ White wrote: > For instance, if everyone knew who was being nominated, they would have > a better feel for the level of expertise, etc, on the current list. This > might actually help bring in more nominees, and reduce the amount of > "arm twisting" that needs to go on in the background. > > :-) Note that this seems to assume that willing candidates are being posted as soon as they agree (as opposed to publishing the entire list of willing candidates after the close of nominations). If that is the desired intention, it would be another point to capture in the documentation. Leslie. -- ------------------------------------------------------------------- "Reality: Yours to discover." -- ThinkingCat Leslie Daigle leslie@thinkingcat.com ------------------------------------------------------------------- From leslie@thinkingcat.com Tue Feb 24 09:03:56 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietf-nomcom@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietf-nomcom@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2A0B43A6A89 for ; Tue, 24 Feb 2009 09:03:56 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.799 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.799 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.200, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id pEwlXg2c-eT8 for ; Tue, 24 Feb 2009 09:03:55 -0800 (PST) Received: from zeke.ecotroph.net (zeke.ecotroph.net [70.164.19.155]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 19E313A6977 for ; Tue, 24 Feb 2009 09:03:55 -0800 (PST) Received: from beethoven.local ([::ffff:209.183.196.229]) (AUTH: PLAIN leslie, SSL: TLSv1/SSLv3,256bits,AES256-SHA) by zeke.ecotroph.net with esmtp; Tue, 24 Feb 2009 12:04:13 -0500 id 0158816A.49A4288D.0000099C Message-ID: <49A42885.6010408@thinkingcat.com> Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2009 12:04:05 -0500 From: Leslie Daigle User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.19 (Macintosh/20081209) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Joel M. Halpern" References: <72E1E2EDDBD5CBDD92BF837F@eList-eXpress-LLC.local> <499F3A1A.7020205@thinkingcat.com> <51C740C6-2F58-4B5D-BB51-C6C937D5EF35@tcb.net> <49A2EED1.6000506@thinkingcat.com> <49A300D3.3060501@joelhalpern.com> In-Reply-To: <49A300D3.3060501@joelhalpern.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: NomComDiscussion Subject: Re: [ietf-nomcom] announcing list of willing candidates X-BeenThere: ietf-nomcom@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions of possible revisions to the NomCom process List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2009 17:03:56 -0000 FWIW: Joel M. Halpern wrote: > PS: As a minor note, getting credible ringers who are willing and able > to be listed, but not willing and able to serve, is harder than it > looks. And the ringer-pool leaks like a sieve because folks ask > questions of people they know. So the whole ringer procedure is > difficult and much less than effective. This is probably worth capturing in the draft, as well (as a motivation for -- this is factual, as opposed to concluding people don't want to "waste their time"). Leslie. > I would actually agree with Leslie on the point below. > If we say that the list of willing nominees is public, then we better > mean it. > That can mean a hard cutoff. > It can also mean that the nomcom can go twist arms, and then add those > names to the visible list. > But we should not be unclear which of those two we intend. While both > paths are defensible, I think we have to explicitly pick one. > > My own opinion is that we are better off allowing the nomcom to add > names. (including allowing the nomcom to reopen the list to the > community to add names, as already happens too often for happiness.) > Things happen. Preventing such additions would be a bad idea. > > Joel > > PS: As a minor note, getting credible ringers who are willing and able > to be listed, but not willing and able to serve, is harder than it > looks. And the ringer-pool leaks like a sieve because folks ask > questions of people they know. So the whole ringer procedure is > difficult and much less than effective. That's why I want both parts > fixed. (I have no objection to describing it as two issues, as long as > they both get fixed. Heck, I don't care if someone manages to describe > it as 7 issues, as long as it gets fixed ASAP.) > > Leslie Daigle wrote: >> Hi, >> >> Noting that I said the draft should address these issues (even if it >> is to document why they are no longer applicable or should be moved on >> from), some further comments in-line: >> >> >> Danny McPherson wrote: >>> >>> On Feb 20, 2009, at 4:17 PM, Leslie Daigle wrote: > ... >>>> 3/ Flexibility >>>> >>>> NomComs sometimes find that their lists of willing candidates do not >>>> include the best candidate for the job, generally after the stated >>>> deadline for accepting nominations. In the past, arms have been >>>> twisted, funding has been found, at very late dates. This has even >>>> been for the better of the IETF as a whole. This draft should >>>> address whether that will still be feasible, and under what >>>> conditions (or why the tradeoff is worth it). >>> >>> I presume this is one of those things that this draft enables >>> to remain up to the processes of the nomcom itself, and would >>> think any additional prescriptive text here would be >>> undesirable. >> >> >> Sorry, no. If the point is to make all the candidates visible to the >> community to comment on, then how, exactly, shall the NomCom >> "flexibly" appoint someone that is identified after the end of >> nominations? >> >> >> Expectations need to be set -- should the community expect to see all >> candidates under decision to provide comment, for some period of time >> in advance? Or to see some of the candidates some of the time? (And >> how quickly do you think that will generate consternation?). >> >> >> >> Leslie. > -- ------------------------------------------------------------------- "Reality: Yours to discover." -- ThinkingCat Leslie Daigle leslie@thinkingcat.com ------------------------------------------------------------------- From spencer@wonderhamster.org Thu Feb 26 08:01:24 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietf-nomcom@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietf-nomcom@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6312028C195 for ; Thu, 26 Feb 2009 08:01:24 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.185 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.185 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_40=-0.185] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id vJhqxuaOSyFM for ; Thu, 26 Feb 2009 08:01:23 -0800 (PST) Received: from mout.perfora.net (mout.perfora.net [74.208.4.194]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8BD6E28C181 for ; Thu, 26 Feb 2009 08:01:23 -0800 (PST) Received: from S73602b ([12.47.180.34]) by mrelay.perfora.net (node=mrus0) with ESMTP (Nemesis) id 0MKp8S-1LcigA277r-000NqL; Thu, 26 Feb 2009 11:01:45 -0500 Message-ID: From: "Spencer Dawkins" To: "NomComDiscussion" References: <72E1E2EDDBD5CBDD92BF837F@eList-eXpress-LLC.local> <499F3A1A.7020205@thinkingcat.com> <51C740C6-2F58-4B5D-BB51-C6C937D5EF35@tcb.net><49A2EED1.6000506@thinkingcat.com><49A300D3.3060501@joelhalpern.com> <49A42885.6010408@thinkingcat.com> Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2009 10:01:20 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; reply-type=response Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.5512 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.5579 X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX18lZSuRhWqzByE0PpeCQFbC8Y14lL0qvE5DP5i VLPm38p7++tSXG85DN95L5CfkEDNe5ocbDbbrme49LnjfEjGTt 7gSkDJkVONcT7N0k8C/2c/UnnjUtxh6DEKWdvgwFO4= Subject: Re: [ietf-nomcom] announcing list of willing candidates X-BeenThere: ietf-nomcom@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions of possible revisions to the NomCom process List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2009 16:01:24 -0000 Just to let people know, I've revised this draft based on feedback from this mailing list. The new draft is available at http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-dawkins-nomcom-openlist-01.txt. I am, of course, always happy to see additional feedback... and if I misunderstood the comments you sent, please let me know that as well. Thanks, Spencer From spencer@wonderhamster.org Thu Feb 26 08:35:01 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietf-nomcom@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietf-nomcom@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7F1EA28C0E0 for ; Thu, 26 Feb 2009 08:35:01 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.392 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.392 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.207, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id fi3kQ+UPuD7S for ; Thu, 26 Feb 2009 08:34:57 -0800 (PST) Received: from mout.perfora.net (mout.perfora.net [74.208.4.195]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 64F7F28C0DE for ; Thu, 26 Feb 2009 08:34:57 -0800 (PST) Received: from S73602b ([12.47.180.34]) by mrelay.perfora.net (node=mrus0) with ESMTP (Nemesis) id 0MKp8S-1LcjCf1yET-000NUQ; Thu, 26 Feb 2009 11:35:18 -0500 Message-ID: <004C2752057A4EA6871EACCE7A0D16FD@china.huawei.com> From: "Spencer Dawkins" To: "NomComDiscussion" Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2009 10:34:58 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; reply-type=response Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.5512 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.5579 X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX1/ZmvKBAurrbU7ChWFtrcHF+JWREJQGrUIW48j FKfKAXUN9ZKozTTHf956KnbMQfSheIlv8sH/odgTQIHaoH6TUA c45YuxAYdlaSq1CQj44Qjbu52RKCDwb80qu33FC2W0= Subject: [ietf-nomcom] Fw: announcing list of willing candidates X-BeenThere: ietf-nomcom@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions of possible revisions to the NomCom process List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2009 16:35:01 -0000 Just so others see Joel's comment - I'll post a corrected draft Real Soon Now. Spencer ----- Original Message ----- From: "Joel M. Halpern" To: "Spencer Dawkins" Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2009 10:11 AM Subject: Re: [ietf-nomcom] announcing list of willing candidates > There is a terminology glitch in this version. (It may have been in the > last version, and the larger questions occluded it from me.) The people > the nomcom are considering are nominees. Candidates are the folks we > actually forward to the confirming body. > This has tripped up many people. > > Joel > > Spencer Dawkins wrote: >> Just to let people know, I've revised this draft based on feedback from >> this mailing list. The new draft is available at >> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-dawkins-nomcom-openlist-01.txt. >> >> I am, of course, always happy to see additional feedback... and if I >> misunderstood the comments you sent, please let me know that as well. >> >> Thanks, >> >> Spencer >> >> _______________________________________________ >> ietf-nomcom mailing list >> ietf-nomcom@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-nomcom >> > From spencer@wonderhamster.org Thu Feb 26 09:49:46 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietf-nomcom@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietf-nomcom@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6DAE23A68D2 for ; Thu, 26 Feb 2009 09:49:46 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.996 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.996 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.604, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ZsSRM6MszToN for ; Thu, 26 Feb 2009 09:49:45 -0800 (PST) Received: from mout.perfora.net (mout.perfora.net [74.208.4.195]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 88CBC3A68CB for ; Thu, 26 Feb 2009 09:49:45 -0800 (PST) Received: from S73602b ([12.47.180.34]) by mrelay.perfora.net (node=mrus1) with ESMTP (Nemesis) id 0MKpCa-1LckN31wCf-00011L; Thu, 26 Feb 2009 12:50:06 -0500 Message-ID: <6AB15C41598B4C848C8E1E02B3900A78@china.huawei.com> From: "Spencer Dawkins" To: "NomComDiscussion" References: <004C2752057A4EA6871EACCE7A0D16FD@china.huawei.com> Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2009 11:49:45 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; reply-type=response Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.5512 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.5579 X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX18iKvbapZ9C1p0C5azfdcpeN2VIQ4H6DDqjMXr UdSMLo1oH6ptrqiUYOVf5QiKkH6OqIVwMmDbVboozGHASgXztF xa/v7zzs45qQLwxgU8uCU9VDCDsbT6TXYndhHS93Os= Subject: Re: [ietf-nomcom] Fw: announcing list of willing candidates X-BeenThere: ietf-nomcom@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions of possible revisions to the NomCom process List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2009 17:49:46 -0000 Updated draft has been posted - now available at http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-dawkins-nomcom-openlist-02... Thanks, Joel, for pointing this out. Spencer ----- Original Message ----- From: "Spencer Dawkins" To: "NomComDiscussion" Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2009 10:34 AM Subject: [ietf-nomcom] Fw: announcing list of willing candidates > Just so others see Joel's comment - I'll post a corrected draft Real Soon > Now. > > Spencer > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Joel M. Halpern" > To: "Spencer Dawkins" > Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2009 10:11 AM > Subject: Re: [ietf-nomcom] announcing list of willing candidates > > >> There is a terminology glitch in this version. (It may have been in the >> last version, and the larger questions occluded it from me.) The people >> the nomcom are considering are nominees. Candidates are the folks we >> actually forward to the confirming body. >> This has tripped up many people. >> >> Joel >> >> Spencer Dawkins wrote: >>> Just to let people know, I've revised this draft based on feedback from >>> this mailing list. The new draft is available at >>> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-dawkins-nomcom-openlist-01.txt. >>> >>> I am, of course, always happy to see additional feedback... and if I >>> misunderstood the comments you sent, please let me know that as well. >>> >>> Thanks, >>> >>> Spencer >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> ietf-nomcom mailing list >>> ietf-nomcom@ietf.org >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-nomcom >>> >> > > > _______________________________________________ > ietf-nomcom mailing list > ietf-nomcom@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-nomcom > From jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com Thu Feb 26 19:58:01 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietf-nomcom@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietf-nomcom@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DEC7028C271 for ; Thu, 26 Feb 2009 19:58:01 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 1.927 X-Spam-Level: * X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.927 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.934, BAYES_50=0.001, DATE_IN_PAST_12_24=0.992] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id BTn5txFBNf2T for ; Thu, 26 Feb 2009 19:58:00 -0800 (PST) Received: from elasmtp-dupuy.atl.sa.earthlink.net (elasmtp-dupuy.atl.sa.earthlink.net [209.86.89.62]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CF1603A67FF for ; Thu, 26 Feb 2009 19:57:48 -0800 (PST) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=dk20050327; d=ix.netcom.com; b=Zev983LzMl3JIcBRv952toXBdN4mP+V+0yIkiSN8xDqXx3VJ4Aci948C+fssiOlq; h=Received:Message-ID:Date:From:Organization:X-Mailer:X-Accept-Language:MIME-Version:To:CC:Subject:References:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:X-ELNK-Trace:X-Originating-IP; Received: from [4.227.102.17] (helo=ix.netcom.com) by elasmtp-dupuy.atl.sa.earthlink.net with esmtpa (Exim 4.67) (envelope-from ) id 1LctrV-000749-OQ; Thu, 26 Feb 2009 22:58:10 -0500 Message-ID: <49A62CCA.F710386D@ix.netcom.com> Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2009 21:46:51 -0800 From: "Jeffrey A. Williams" Organization: IDNS and Spokesman for INEGroup X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.8 [en] (Windows NT 5.0; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Spencer Dawkins References: <72E1E2EDDBD5CBDD92BF837F@eList-eXpress-LLC.local> <499F3A1A.7020205@thinkingcat.com> <51C740C6-2F58-4B5D-BB51-C6C937D5EF35@tcb.net><49A2EED1.6000506@thinkingcat.com><49A300D3.3060501@joelhalpern.com> <49A42885.6010408@thinkingcat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-ELNK-Trace: c8e3929e1e9c87a874cfc7ce3b1ad11381c87f5e51960688420db23333aeddc37e6c0a5e07e56d6d350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c X-Originating-IP: 4.227.102.17 Cc: NomComDiscussion Subject: Re: [ietf-nomcom] announcing list of willing candidates X-BeenThere: ietf-nomcom@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions of possible revisions to the NomCom process List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2009 03:58:02 -0000 Spencer and all, A few comments/feedback even though I am not a candidate, if that is ok with everybody. Than a couple of questions about your draft Spencer. But thanks Spencer for providing this draft as I sound it overall a good idea and a useful approach to addressing the underlying concerns regarding willing and/or preferred candidates. Comments: I presently see no good reason to circumvent of otherwise modify RFC3777. Seems to me that perhaps some very good candidates are or could be concerned that if giving up some of their privacy/confidentiality even with guarantees of protection, is too risky to wish to serve. I can personally understand that myself. Question: I am not sure if as worded in this draft what is meant by "undesirable" behaviors in any context to the acceptance of selection of candidates on the "Short list" or even in the making up of the "Short list". Note: For everyone. While in the middle of crafting this question and the above comments, I called Spence on the phone and he kindly explained what he actually meant. None the less, while reading this draft I became concerned that perhaps some folks in the IETF was becoming involved in areas of endeavor that seemed far out of the scope of the IETF's areas of expertise. Thanks for setting me straight Spence! P.S. As a relief to some if not most, I would never desire to chair any WG or similar within the IETF. So I an sure I would not make a "Exceptable Candidate" or "Desirable Candidate", ergo the "Short list". >:) Spencer Dawkins wrote: > Just to let people know, I've revised this draft based on feedback from this > mailing list. The new draft is available at > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-dawkins-nomcom-openlist-01.txt. > > I am, of course, always happy to see additional feedback... and if I > misunderstood the comments you sent, please let me know that as well. > > Thanks, > > Spencer > > _______________________________________________ > ietf-nomcom mailing list > ietf-nomcom@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-nomcom Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 284k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "YES WE CAN!" Barack ( Berry ) Obama "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827 From kre@munnari.OZ.AU Thu Feb 26 23:22:23 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietf-nomcom@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietf-nomcom@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D97523A690A for ; Thu, 26 Feb 2009 23:22:23 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.048 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.048 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, RDNS_NONE=0.1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id rTI0MFuLlnGI for ; Thu, 26 Feb 2009 23:22:23 -0800 (PST) Received: from jade.coe.psu.ac.th (unknown [202.28.99.196]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 66C683A689C for ; Thu, 26 Feb 2009 23:22:22 -0800 (PST) Received: from epsilon.noi.kre.to (jade.coe.psu.ac.th [202.28.99.196]) by jade.coe.psu.ac.th with ESMTP id n1R7LAEP002512; Fri, 27 Feb 2009 14:21:10 +0700 (ICT) Received: from epsilon.noi.kre.to (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by epsilon.noi.kre.to (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id n1R7LClD006429; Fri, 27 Feb 2009 14:21:13 +0700 (ICT) From: Robert Elz To: "Joel M. Halpern" In-Reply-To: <49A300D3.3060501@joelhalpern.com> References: <49A300D3.3060501@joelhalpern.com> <72E1E2EDDBD5CBDD92BF837F@eList-eXpress-LLC.local> <499F3A1A.7020205@thinkingcat.com> <51C740C6-2F58-4B5D-BB51-C6C937D5EF35@tcb.net> <49A2EED1.6000506@thinkingcat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2009 14:21:12 +0700 Message-ID: <6509.1235719272@epsilon.noi.kre.to> Sender: kre@munnari.OZ.AU Cc: NomComDiscussion Subject: Re: [ietf-nomcom] announcing list of willing candidates X-BeenThere: ietf-nomcom@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions of possible revisions to the NomCom process List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2009 07:22:23 -0000 Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2009 15:02:27 -0500 From: "Joel M. Halpern" Message-ID: <49A300D3.3060501@joelhalpern.com> What you said in this message I agree with totally ... | My own opinion is that we are better off allowing the nomcom to add | names. Absolutely - keep as much flexibility as possible. | PS: As a minor note, getting credible ringers who are willing and able | to be listed, but not willing and able to serve, is harder than it | looks. And the ringer-pool leaks like a sieve because folks ask | questions of people they know. Of course, the whole list with ringers idea is silly. | That's why I want both parts fixed. Yes, it should all be made clear. But I suspect my way of resolving it isn't the same as yours. In particular, from your earlier message... jmh@joelhalpern.com said: | Without being given some sort of list it is very hard for folks to give the | nominating committee useful feedback. It is harder, yes, but not impossible. They may tell you nothing about some some nominees, but as I indicated last time, that's useful information in itself. jmh@joelhalpern.com said: | The current procedure also requires folks to waste their time. The | committee is required to include ringers in the list, so as to avoid | disclosing who they are actually considering. That is simply wrong. Nothing in the procedures requires the nomcom to create ringers (in fact, I challenge you to find an instance of the word "ringer" (or anything semantically equivalent) in the current nomcom procedures. The nomcom are not required to "avoid disclosing who they are actually considering", in fact rfc3777 section 5.12 explicitly allows the normal confidentiality rules to be widened to include anyone with whom the nomcom consults - provided they agree to keep the information confidential. In the absense of that agreement, the current procedures require the nomcom's list to remain confidential, and exposing it with what is (often) the equivalent of "Fred Flintstone", "George W Bush" and a few others added, is NOT keeping it confidential. I know that you believe that is necessary to send out lists to all kinds of people to attempt to get feedback. I disagree. I believe that it should be possible to get adequate feedback with the procedures as they are now (implemented as written). That is, you can ask authors of drafts, WG chairs, etc, if they're prepared to keep some information confidential, and if they agree, you can ask specifically about a particular nominee for a specific position - you can, or not, also ask about other possible positions they may be being considered for. I have been asked like that in the past, and have no problem at all agreeing, and then keeping the info confidential (though at least one time I was asked, and agreed to keep info confidential, ringers were added anyway - obvious ringers - for what purpose I can't imagine). Just keep the whole thing confidential, almost all the other problems go away - you can add names (by late nominations, or nomcom arm twisting) any time you like, and no-one need ever know, there's less chance for campaigning, and much less appearance of the whole thing turning into a voting system. The nomcom process should operate like, and be conducted like, any other job filling head hunting exercise - and that almost always means that people being considered stay confidential until they're appointed. kre From bernie@ietf.hoeneisen.ch Fri Feb 27 06:48:30 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietf-nomcom@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietf-nomcom@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A80EE3A6966 for ; Fri, 27 Feb 2009 06:48:30 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 33DKAi5MP-U4 for ; Fri, 27 Feb 2009 06:48:29 -0800 (PST) Received: from softronics.hoeneisen.ch (softronics.hoeneisen.ch [62.2.86.178]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B69513A6452 for ; Fri, 27 Feb 2009 06:48:29 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]) by softronics.hoeneisen.ch with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Ld41C-0006jM-AQ for ietf-nomcom@ietf.org; Fri, 27 Feb 2009 15:48:50 +0100 Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2009 15:48:50 +0100 (CET) From: Bernie Hoeneisen X-X-Sender: bhoeneis@softronics.hoeneisen.ch To: ietf-nomcom@ietf.org Message-ID: User-Agent: Alpine 2.00 (DEB 1167 2008-08-23) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 127.0.0.1 X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: bernie@ietf.hoeneisen.ch X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on softronics.hoeneisen.ch); SAEximRunCond expanded to false Subject: [ietf-nomcom] Feedback on NomCom I-Ds X-BeenThere: ietf-nomcom@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions of possible revisions to the NomCom process List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2009 14:48:30 -0000 Hi Spencer et al. I have just read your I-D about the NomCom. Interesting! As a current voting member of the NomCom I am well aware of the issues. There is certainly room for improvement, of which your address two issues. In the following I comment on one of them and add some further change proposal in the area of confidentiality. 1) Concerning the ringers / list padding issue The list of candidates willing to serve in positions under review in the current NomCom cycle is not confidential. The NomCom will publish the list of names of all willing candidates to the community, in order to obtain feedback from the community on these candidates. The list of candidates published should not contain candidates who have not indicated a willingness to serve in the position(s) under review. I agree that it is a bad idea to force the NomCom to use ringers in their feedback lists. In fact, we hated to be forced to use ringers sooooooo much. On top of that we received a substantial amount of community complaint because of this. However, I'd like to express that there are certain cases, where padding is useful. In particular, if only a small number (1 or 2) of nominee is running for a post. In such cases the NomCom should have the option to use to use ringers in order to trigger useful feedback on the real nominees. Having the option to add ringers also helps a bit with the confidentialiy if the community knows there might be padding in the lists. I suggest to discourage from using padding, but explicitely allow padding in certain cases. The decision on whether or not to use padding should be left to the NomCom in office. 2) Concerning trimming the lists It might be desirable to prevent calling for feedback on certain nominees, as those might distract from getting useful feedback on other nominees. This applies for example for highly controversial nominees, the NomCom would never ever select. Another problem might occur with the list of IAB volonteers, i.e. the feedback list of the IAB might get way too long, if not trimmed beforehands. 3) 3rd paragraph and former NomCom members It is consistent with this rule for current nominating committee members who have served on prior nominating committees to advise the current committee on deliberations and results of the prior committee, as necessary and appropriate. As I understand this, current NomCom members who have served on prior NomComs are allowed to share information they have as a result of their membership in prior NomComs. I suggest to explicitely allow any member of a former NomCom to share with the current NomCom any information relevant to the current NomCom. Such kind of information is most useful to current NomComs. cheers, Bernie, voting member of current NomCom From riw@cisco.com Fri Feb 27 08:03:16 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietf-nomcom@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietf-nomcom@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F065628C193 for ; Fri, 27 Feb 2009 08:03:16 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Q3e2Ok1cMBGl for ; Fri, 27 Feb 2009 08:03:16 -0800 (PST) Received: from rtp-iport-1.cisco.com (rtp-iport-1.cisco.com [64.102.122.148]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CA39A28C16E for ; Fri, 27 Feb 2009 08:03:15 -0800 (PST) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.38,276,1233532800"; d="scan'208";a="38696902" Received: from rtp-dkim-2.cisco.com ([64.102.121.159]) by rtp-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 27 Feb 2009 16:03:38 +0000 Received: from rtp-core-2.cisco.com (rtp-core-2.cisco.com [64.102.124.13]) by rtp-dkim-2.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id n1RG3bQU022852; Fri, 27 Feb 2009 11:03:37 -0500 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (rtp-vpn3-561.cisco.com [10.82.218.52]) by rtp-core-2.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id n1RG3bel018526; Fri, 27 Feb 2009 16:03:37 GMT Message-ID: <49A80ED6.1000509@cisco.com> Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2009 11:03:34 -0500 From: Russ White User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.19 (Windows/20081209) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Jeffrey A. Williams" References: <72E1E2EDDBD5CBDD92BF837F@eList-eXpress-LLC.local> <499F3A1A.7020205@thinkingcat.com> <51C740C6-2F58-4B5D-BB51-C6C937D5EF35@tcb.net><49A2EED1.6000506@thinkingcat.com><49A300D3.3060501@joelhalpern.com> <49A42885.6010408@thinkingcat.com> <49A62CCA.F710386D@ix.netcom.com> In-Reply-To: <49A62CCA.F710386D@ix.netcom.com> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.95.7 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; l=2787; t=1235750617; x=1236614617; c=relaxed/simple; s=rtpdkim2001; h=Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; d=cisco.com; i=riw@cisco.com; z=From:=20Russ=20White=20 |Subject:=20Re=3A=20[ietf-nomcom]=20announcing=20list=20of= 20willing=20candidates |Sender:=20 |To:=20=22Jeffrey=20A.=20Williams=22=20; bh=KRUGHl35gonmps7vabjzFZk6ol5N7a14I29i34/Osaw=; b=vtFQzvyqng4C0Vsg5x6Eo+7OeB8V6aszkz7vAkSff7Fg8u4qz7p710/8Ck aANGAqafiPN2KmXYOu7bkbmz5h4xbEWKQ+HfmL6xm2AAvXtjr93nW4P9GTnK xb8IqIjtUW; Authentication-Results: rtp-dkim-2; header.From=riw@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/rtpdkim2001 verified; ); Cc: NomComDiscussion Subject: Re: [ietf-nomcom] announcing list of willing candidates X-BeenThere: ietf-nomcom@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions of possible revisions to the NomCom process List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2009 16:03:17 -0000 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 > Comments: I presently see no good reason to circumvent of > otherwise modify RFC3777. Seems to me that perhaps some > very good candidates are or could be concerned that if giving > up some of their privacy/confidentiality even with guarantees of > protection, is too risky to wish to serve. I'm not certain how having an open list would remove someone's privacy or confidentiality. You're concerned that someone might not put their name up for fear of being rejected, and hence having their name listed publicly for consideration for something they don't, eventually, end up serving for? I'm trying to sort how this would have a negative career impact, or how this would violate someone's privacy (?), since you have to release a list to get feedback anyway. What's really at stake is this: 1. There is a list of those who are nominated. 2. There is a list of those who are under consideration. The differential between the two lists is designed to help the nomcom sort through smaller subsets of information, making the process more efficient. What we would be "unhiding" is the differential between these two lists. I assume this differential is hidden to prevent the embarrassment of being nominated, and not selected to be among the "serious candidates." What I fail to see is how this is any different from the embarrassment that might result from being on the "short list," where the nomcom asks specifically the community for feedback on people, and not being finally selected. Or the embarrassment of being on the "short list" when the nomcom asks for additional candidates (the second chance drawing), implying those already on the list aren't considered "good enough"--regardless of the reality behind the scenes. There is an impression in the community that most people are not considered serious candidates for reasons they can actually control. After serving on three nomcoms, I can say I don't normally find this to be the case. The process has definitely moved towards placing far more weight on the name after the "@" sign in your email address, what your background is (research/industry/provider/etc), and other factors. Given this reality, there is absolutely _no_ reason for anyone to be embarrassed about being nominated and not selected for additional feedback, etc. I find the entire "second chance drawing" process much more embarrassing to everyone involved than I do any sort of list unhiding. :-) Russ -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iEYEARECAAYFAkmoDtYACgkQER27sUhU9OR+KACg3E0Lxda+Jmt5aiyYxCGOXWqq eqkAnjGeNSeBYZD4KFQpQPX6iNDLJV+1 =UlV0 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From jmh@joelhalpern.com Fri Feb 27 08:23:11 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietf-nomcom@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietf-nomcom@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 329B928C22E for ; Fri, 27 Feb 2009 08:23:11 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.495 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.495 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.104, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id bf3N1dV5uPiY for ; Fri, 27 Feb 2009 08:23:10 -0800 (PST) Received: from hermes.mail.tigertech.net (hermes.mail.tigertech.net [64.62.209.72]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D7DB928C260 for ; Fri, 27 Feb 2009 08:22:48 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hermes.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id CC04043013C for ; Fri, 27 Feb 2009 08:23:11 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at hermes.tigertech.net Received: from [10.10.10.100] (pool-71-161-50-192.clppva.btas.verizon.net [71.161.50.192]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by hermes.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 096CA430138 for ; Fri, 27 Feb 2009 08:23:10 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <49A8136B.6060404@joelhalpern.com> Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2009 11:23:07 -0500 From: "Joel M. Halpern" User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.19 (Windows/20081209) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: NomComDiscussion References: <49A300D3.3060501@joelhalpern.com> <72E1E2EDDBD5CBDD92BF837F@eList-eXpress-LLC.local> <499F3A1A.7020205@thinkingcat.com> <51C740C6-2F58-4B5D-BB51-C6C937D5EF35@tcb.net> <49A2EED1.6000506@thinkingcat.com> <6509.1235719272@epsilon.noi.kre.to> In-Reply-To: <6509.1235719272@epsilon.noi.kre.to> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [ietf-nomcom] announcing list of willing candidates X-BeenThere: ietf-nomcom@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions of possible revisions to the NomCom process List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2009 16:23:11 -0000 I consider that the notion of extending the confidentiality envelope to more than 1000 people makes a mockery of the notion of confidentiality. Even national governments have trouble maintaining confidentiality with much smaller sets of people, and they have legal remedies at their disposable. It just does not work. To elaborate on the obvious question of why do so many people get solicited, I will point out several things. Firstly, to get a broad spectrum of feedback, we have to ask a lot of people. While not as bad as classic bulk mailing, the response rate is not good. (And frequently, those who are diligently responding can only say "I don't know this person.") Secondly, the list of all WG Chairs, all directorate members, and all authors of I-Ds in an area is actually quite a large group. (And that is not counting the authors who are working in the area, but don't get caught by the automated scripts we use.) And there there is the question of getting cross-area feedback, since ADs often have to work across areas. Thirdly, the Nomcom would prefer not to be just asking the leadership, or just the folks well known to the nomcom. One of the purposes of the creation of the nominating committee process in the first place was to avoid having the leadership appoint the leadership. So it is actually necessary to have some way to reach out to the community. One can argue about what threshold of questions makes a mockery of the process. But any group large enough to do the nomcom any good is also large enough to leak like a sieve and call into question the effectiveness of the confidentiality. We are dealing with human beings. People like to talk. They like to know things. And, creating a large group of people, biased towards teh existing leadership, who know have a better ability to provide input, and leaving a very large part of community in the dark, unable to provide much effective input, does not seem fair or appropriate. Yours, Joel Robert Elz wrote: > Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2009 15:02:27 -0500 > From: "Joel M. Halpern" > Message-ID: <49A300D3.3060501@joelhalpern.com> > > What you said in this message I agree with totally ... > > | My own opinion is that we are better off allowing the nomcom to add > | names. > > Absolutely - keep as much flexibility as possible. > > | PS: As a minor note, getting credible ringers who are willing and able > | to be listed, but not willing and able to serve, is harder than it > | looks. And the ringer-pool leaks like a sieve because folks ask > | questions of people they know. > > Of course, the whole list with ringers idea is silly. > > | That's why I want both parts fixed. > > Yes, it should all be made clear. But I suspect my way of resolving > it isn't the same as yours. In particular, from your earlier message... > > jmh@joelhalpern.com said: > | Without being given some sort of list it is very hard for folks to give the > | nominating committee useful feedback. > > It is harder, yes, but not impossible. They may tell you nothing about > some some nominees, but as I indicated last time, that's useful information > in itself. > > jmh@joelhalpern.com said: > | The current procedure also requires folks to waste their time. The > | committee is required to include ringers in the list, so as to avoid > | disclosing who they are actually considering. > > That is simply wrong. Nothing in the procedures requires the nomcom > to create ringers (in fact, I challenge you to find an instance of the > word "ringer" (or anything semantically equivalent) in the current > nomcom procedures. > > The nomcom are not required to "avoid disclosing who they are actually > considering", in fact rfc3777 section 5.12 explicitly allows the > normal confidentiality rules to be widened to include anyone with > whom the nomcom consults - provided they agree to keep the information > confidential. In the absense of that agreement, the current procedures > require the nomcom's list to remain confidential, and exposing it with > what is (often) the equivalent of "Fred Flintstone", "George W Bush" > and a few others added, is NOT keeping it confidential. > > I know that you believe that is necessary to send out lists to all kinds > of people to attempt to get feedback. I disagree. I believe that > it should be possible to get adequate feedback with the procedures as > they are now (implemented as written). That is, you can ask authors > of drafts, WG chairs, etc, if they're prepared to keep some information > confidential, and if they agree, you can ask specifically about a > particular nominee for a specific position - you can, or not, also ask > about other possible positions they may be being considered for. > > I have been asked like that in the past, and have no problem at all > agreeing, and then keeping the info confidential (though at least one > time I was asked, and agreed to keep info confidential, ringers were > added anyway - obvious ringers - for what purpose I can't imagine). > > Just keep the whole thing confidential, almost all the other problems > go away - you can add names (by late nominations, or nomcom arm twisting) > any time you like, and no-one need ever know, there's less chance for > campaigning, and much less appearance of the whole thing turning into > a voting system. > > The nomcom process should operate like, and be conducted like, any > other job filling head hunting exercise - and that almost always means > that people being considered stay confidential until they're appointed. > > kre > > From huitema@windows.microsoft.com Fri Feb 27 09:03:52 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietf-nomcom@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietf-nomcom@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3CE7C28C2FD for ; Fri, 27 Feb 2009 09:03:52 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -110.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-110.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id WTmdwmnawpof for ; Fri, 27 Feb 2009 09:03:50 -0800 (PST) Received: from smtp.microsoft.com (mail3.microsoft.com [131.107.115.214]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3166928C286 for ; Fri, 27 Feb 2009 09:03:50 -0800 (PST) Received: from TK5-EXHUB-C102.redmond.corp.microsoft.com (157.54.18.53) by TK5-EXGWY-E803.partners.extranet.microsoft.com (10.251.56.169) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.2.99.4; Fri, 27 Feb 2009 09:04:12 -0800 Received: from TK5-EXMLT-W605V.wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.microsoft.com (157.54.18.79) by TK5-EXHUB-C102.redmond.corp.microsoft.com (157.54.18.53) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 8.2.99.4; Fri, 27 Feb 2009 09:04:12 -0800 Received: from NA-EXMSG-W601.wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.microsoft.com ([fe80::75be:c82f:ae04:55bf]) by TK5-EXMLT-W605V.wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.microsoft.com ([157.54.18.79]) with mapi; Fri, 27 Feb 2009 09:04:12 -0800 From: Christian Huitema To: "Joel M. Halpern" , NomComDiscussion Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2009 09:04:07 -0800 Thread-Topic: [ietf-nomcom] announcing list of willing candidates Thread-Index: AcmY+Atb003Z3uoHRkWYVWSPyLBsCQABOs3A Message-ID: <8EFB68EAE061884A8517F2A755E8B60A19DB1B2A47@NA-EXMSG-W601.wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.microsoft.com> References: <49A300D3.3060501@joelhalpern.com> <72E1E2EDDBD5CBDD92BF837F@eList-eXpress-LLC.local> <499F3A1A.7020205@thinkingcat.com> <51C740C6-2F58-4B5D-BB51-C6C937D5EF35@tcb.net> <49A2EED1.6000506@thinkingcat.com> <6509.1235719272@epsilon.noi.kre.to> <49A8136B.6060404@joelhalpern.com> In-Reply-To: <49A8136B.6060404@joelhalpern.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [ietf-nomcom] announcing list of willing candidates X-BeenThere: ietf-nomcom@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions of possible revisions to the NomCom process List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2009 17:03:52 -0000 These discussions remain me a lot of discussions we had in the old IAB & IE= SG, pre 1992, about opening and transparency. Just like now, there were man= y arguments against transparency, because it is often quite inconvenient. B= ut if you look at it the other way, in the absence of transparency, what yo= u get is an "old boys club". For all its real or supposed inconvenience, tr= ansparency, and shining light on the process, generally ends up being much = better than the alternative. -- Christian Huitema From leslie@thinkingcat.com Fri Feb 27 09:56:50 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietf-nomcom@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietf-nomcom@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E9BC528C370 for ; Fri, 27 Feb 2009 09:56:50 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.724 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.724 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.125, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id RT60h+BlsBIT for ; Fri, 27 Feb 2009 09:56:49 -0800 (PST) Received: from zeke.ecotroph.net (zeke.ecotroph.net [70.164.19.155]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9E09828C369 for ; Fri, 27 Feb 2009 09:56:49 -0800 (PST) Received: from beethoven.local ([::ffff:209.183.196.229]) (AUTH: PLAIN leslie, SSL: TLSv1/SSLv3,256bits,AES256-SHA) by zeke.ecotroph.net with esmtp; Fri, 27 Feb 2009 12:57:11 -0500 id 0158800A.49A82977.000032C5 Message-ID: <49A8296E.6060102@thinkingcat.com> Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2009 12:57:02 -0500 From: Leslie Daigle User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.19 (Macintosh/20081209) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Joel M. Halpern" References: <49A300D3.3060501@joelhalpern.com> <72E1E2EDDBD5CBDD92BF837F@eList-eXpress-LLC.local> <499F3A1A.7020205@thinkingcat.com> <51C740C6-2F58-4B5D-BB51-C6C937D5EF35@tcb.net> <49A2EED1.6000506@thinkingcat.com> <6509.1235719272@epsilon.noi.kre.to> <49A8136B.6060404@joelhalpern.com> In-Reply-To: <49A8136B.6060404@joelhalpern.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: NomComDiscussion Subject: Re: [ietf-nomcom] announcing list of willing candidates X-BeenThere: ietf-nomcom@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions of possible revisions to the NomCom process List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2009 17:56:51 -0000 It would be really interesting to know, if you can share, what the typical numbers were for actual feedbck on nominees, as a percentage. I.e., an average percentage of responses (eg, 40% of people asked for input actually responded), and an average percentage of responses that were greater than 10 words long (which tosses out "I don't know this person" and "This person SUCKS!" -- which are equally uninformative feedback). That's data, and it goes to the level of participation in the feedback process AND some objective measure of the value of the feedback (is it more than a 'vote'). Leslie. Joel M. Halpern wrote: > I consider that the notion of extending the confidentiality envelope to > more than 1000 people makes a mockery of the notion of confidentiality. > Even national governments have trouble maintaining confidentiality > with much smaller sets of people, and they have legal remedies at their > disposable. It just does not work. > > To elaborate on the obvious question of why do so many people get > solicited, I will point out several things. > Firstly, to get a broad spectrum of feedback, we have to ask a lot of > people. While not as bad as classic bulk mailing, the response rate is > not good. (And frequently, those who are diligently responding can only > say "I don't know this person.") > Secondly, the list of all WG Chairs, all directorate members, and all > authors of I-Ds in an area is actually quite a large group. (And that > is not counting the authors who are working in the area, but don't get > caught by the automated scripts we use.) And there there is the > question of getting cross-area feedback, since ADs often have to work > across areas. > Thirdly, the Nomcom would prefer not to be just asking the leadership, > or just the folks well known to the nomcom. One of the purposes of the > creation of the nominating committee process in the first place was to > avoid having the leadership appoint the leadership. So it is actually > necessary to have some way to reach out to the community. > > One can argue about what threshold of questions makes a mockery of the > process. But any group large enough to do the nomcom any good is also > large enough to leak like a sieve and call into question the > effectiveness of the confidentiality. We are dealing with human beings. > People like to talk. They like to know things. > > And, creating a large group of people, biased towards teh existing > leadership, who know have a better ability to provide input, and leaving > a very large part of community in the dark, unable to provide much > effective input, does not seem fair or appropriate. > > Yours, > Joel > > Robert Elz wrote: >> Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2009 15:02:27 -0500 >> From: "Joel M. Halpern" >> Message-ID: <49A300D3.3060501@joelhalpern.com> >> >> What you said in this message I agree with totally ... >> >> | My own opinion is that we are better off allowing the nomcom to >> add | names. >> >> Absolutely - keep as much flexibility as possible. >> >> | PS: As a minor note, getting credible ringers who are willing and >> able | to be listed, but not willing and able to serve, is harder >> than it | looks. And the ringer-pool leaks like a sieve because >> folks ask | questions of people they know. >> >> Of course, the whole list with ringers idea is silly. >> >> | That's why I want both parts fixed. >> >> Yes, it should all be made clear. But I suspect my way of resolving >> it isn't the same as yours. In particular, from your earlier message... >> >> jmh@joelhalpern.com said: >> | Without being given some sort of list it is very hard for folks to >> give the >> | nominating committee useful feedback. >> >> It is harder, yes, but not impossible. They may tell you nothing about >> some some nominees, but as I indicated last time, that's useful >> information >> in itself. >> >> jmh@joelhalpern.com said: >> | The current procedure also requires folks to waste their time. The >> | committee is required to include ringers in the list, so as to avoid >> | disclosing who they are actually considering. >> That is simply wrong. Nothing in the procedures requires the nomcom >> to create ringers (in fact, I challenge you to find an instance of the >> word "ringer" (or anything semantically equivalent) in the current >> nomcom procedures. >> >> The nomcom are not required to "avoid disclosing who they are actually >> considering", in fact rfc3777 section 5.12 explicitly allows the >> normal confidentiality rules to be widened to include anyone with >> whom the nomcom consults - provided they agree to keep the information >> confidential. In the absense of that agreement, the current procedures >> require the nomcom's list to remain confidential, and exposing it with >> what is (often) the equivalent of "Fred Flintstone", "George W Bush" >> and a few others added, is NOT keeping it confidential. >> >> I know that you believe that is necessary to send out lists to all kinds >> of people to attempt to get feedback. I disagree. I believe that >> it should be possible to get adequate feedback with the procedures as >> they are now (implemented as written). That is, you can ask authors >> of drafts, WG chairs, etc, if they're prepared to keep some information >> confidential, and if they agree, you can ask specifically about a >> particular nominee for a specific position - you can, or not, also ask >> about other possible positions they may be being considered for. >> >> I have been asked like that in the past, and have no problem at all >> agreeing, and then keeping the info confidential (though at least one >> time I was asked, and agreed to keep info confidential, ringers were >> added anyway - obvious ringers - for what purpose I can't imagine). >> >> Just keep the whole thing confidential, almost all the other problems >> go away - you can add names (by late nominations, or nomcom arm twisting) >> any time you like, and no-one need ever know, there's less chance for >> campaigning, and much less appearance of the whole thing turning into >> a voting system. >> >> The nomcom process should operate like, and be conducted like, any >> other job filling head hunting exercise - and that almost always means >> that people being considered stay confidential until they're appointed. >> >> kre >> >> > > _______________________________________________ > ietf-nomcom mailing list > ietf-nomcom@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-nomcom -- ------------------------------------------------------------------- "Reality: Yours to discover." -- ThinkingCat Leslie Daigle leslie@thinkingcat.com ------------------------------------------------------------------- From kre@munnari.OZ.AU Fri Feb 27 11:08:10 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietf-nomcom@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietf-nomcom@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 88B0C28C399 for ; Fri, 27 Feb 2009 11:08:10 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.048 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.048 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, RDNS_NONE=0.1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id cpboMbDq0I5R for ; Fri, 27 Feb 2009 11:08:09 -0800 (PST) Received: from jade.coe.psu.ac.th (unknown [202.28.99.196]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E076328C245 for ; Fri, 27 Feb 2009 11:07:48 -0800 (PST) Received: from epsilon.noi.kre.to (jade.coe.psu.ac.th [202.28.99.196]) by jade.coe.psu.ac.th with ESMTP id n1RJ6KNe025683; Sat, 28 Feb 2009 02:06:25 +0700 (ICT) Received: from epsilon.noi.kre.to (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by epsilon.noi.kre.to (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id n1RJ5rNq005871; Sat, 28 Feb 2009 02:06:03 +0700 (ICT) From: Robert Elz To: "Joel M. Halpern" In-Reply-To: <49A8136B.6060404@joelhalpern.com> References: <49A8136B.6060404@joelhalpern.com> <49A300D3.3060501@joelhalpern.com> <72E1E2EDDBD5CBDD92BF837F@eList-eXpress-LLC.local> <499F3A1A.7020205@thinkingcat.com> <51C740C6-2F58-4B5D-BB51-C6C937D5EF35@tcb.net> <49A2EED1.6000506@thinkingcat.com> <6509.1235719272@epsilon.noi.kre.to> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Sat, 28 Feb 2009 02:05:53 +0700 Message-ID: <8708.1235761553@epsilon.noi.kre.to> Sender: kre@munnari.OZ.AU Cc: NomComDiscussion Subject: Re: [ietf-nomcom] announcing list of willing candidates X-BeenThere: ietf-nomcom@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions of possible revisions to the NomCom process List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2009 19:08:10 -0000 Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2009 11:23:07 -0500 From: "Joel M. Halpern" Message-ID: <49A8136B.6060404@joelhalpern.com> | I consider that the notion of extending the confidentiality envelope to | more than 1000 people makes a mockery of the notion of confidentiality. I would too, and I'd never suggest sending confidential information to so many people - nor do I see the need to do so. You say that one of the reasons is that the response rate is not good, and I'd expect that - but to me this indicates that you're going about it the wrong way. Rather than sending a whole bunch of (at least today), supposedly confidential to many people, and hoping that some of them do the right thing with it, I'd instead send the same list of people the question "would you be prepared to provide some confidential information upon a nominee for an IETF leadership position, and keep all information supplied confidential?" (in a few more words than that probably) - and then wait for the responses. Most likely the response will still not be good, but from positive responses that you do get there's a very good chance than when given a specific question you're going to get a high response rate. This way you only supply confidential information to those who have agreed to keep it confidential, rather than to names from a hat that you try to tell "this info must be kept confidential" without any agreement from them. No wonder the whole process leaks ... I'd also tend to ask about just one nominee in a message - that is, rather than giving a list of nominees and asking "which is best" (or what are the strengths/weaknesses amongst this group), I'd just ask for opinions about a single person (nominee), and possibly a blanket final question "and is there anyone else you know of who would, or would not be, good for this position?" It is the nomcom's job to evaluate, not the person asked, they should be being asked to select from a list. If you get the answer "Sorry, know nothing about him/her" than you can perhaps try the same person with a different name from the nominee list - or even for a different position (all random selections.) | Thirdly, the Nomcom would prefer not to be just asking the leadership, | or just the folks well known to the nomcom. Of course not, the pool of possible information sources should be as wide as possible. But that doesn't mean that you have to divulge much information to every name you can come up with as a potential source for information. Get some kind of agreement first, then divulge just a little information. That is, in all of this, what seems to be happening is that a process has been adopted, which doesn't work well, and what's being sought to be done is to tweak the rules to make the process more effective. I am suggesting that it is the wrong process, and the right thing to do is to revise the way that the information is being sought, and leave the rules alone. | People like to talk. They like to know things. This relates to how likely it is for people to actually respect the confidentiality request, as opposed to feeling the deep desire to brag about how much they know more than some other sucker. And yes, there is something of that now - but this is all cultural, and it is possible to change that kind of culture. We can, if we want to, change attitudes to one where revealing this kind of confidential information is not something most people would even consider, and what's more, where an attempt to reveal it would be rebuffed, and the person who wanted to break confidentiality shunned. Those kinds of attitude changes happen - all it needs if for most people to agree that it is the right thing to do. There have been several major attitude changes like this in general society in the past century or so - none are perfect, but the change certainly occurred. | And, creating a large group of people, biased towards teh existing | leadership, who know have a better ability to provide input, and leaving | a very large part of community in the dark, unable to provide much | effective input, does not seem fair or appropriate. Certainly, and no-one would suggest (I hope) that that's how it ought to be done. This also touches on Christian's recent message ... huitema@windows.microsoft.com said: | These discussions remain me a lot of discussions we had in the old IAB & | IESG, pre 1992, about opening and transparency. Just like now, there were | many arguments against transparency, because it is often quite inconvenient. | But if you look at it the other way, in the absence of transparency, what | you get is an "old boys club". For all its real or supposed inconvenience, | transparency, and shining light on the process, generally ends up being much | better than the alternative. And yes, of course, the process needs to be open and transparent. That doesn't mean that the data the process is manipulating needs to be open. Since 1992 we have a randomly selected nomcom from as big a pool of people we can find (and I still believe the selection criteria for that are too narrow - there should be a much bigger potential nomcom pool). There are liaisons who report back to their nominating bodies that everything is proceeeding properly. We have lots of process to make sure things are done the right way, we don't also need to disclose the nominee names for this to remain open and transparent. Consider tenders for govt type purchases - it is important that the process of evaluation be open, fair, and transparent, and it is audited to ensure it remains that way (as much as is possible), but that doesn't mean that details of every tended need to be made public as part of the evaluation process. And while I'm here, one more item for Leslie's original list of issues that need to be considered (arguments against open lists of nominee names) before a decision is made to change this policy. It is entirely possible to assume that a potential nominee for a position may refuse to allow themselves to be considered, if they see that some other person is a nominee, and they feel that the other person would do a more effective job than they can (whether that's false modesty or genuine). If there nominee names are never known, that kind of thinking can't happen - when asked, the person concerned might even say in their response "I can do this if required, but I think Barney Rubble would be a better choice" - never knowing if Barney is being considered or not. With this, I think I'll exit this discussion, you all know my views now. kre From jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com Fri Feb 27 12:32:32 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietf-nomcom@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietf-nomcom@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5B7353A6927 for ; Fri, 27 Feb 2009 12:32:32 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 0.568 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.568 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=2.175, BAYES_00=-2.599, DATE_IN_PAST_12_24=0.992] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id eCB5OARSn3Wu for ; Fri, 27 Feb 2009 12:32:31 -0800 (PST) Received: from elasmtp-scoter.atl.sa.earthlink.net (elasmtp-scoter.atl.sa.earthlink.net [209.86.89.67]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 340923A67D0 for ; Fri, 27 Feb 2009 12:32:31 -0800 (PST) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=dk20050327; d=ix.netcom.com; b=Zha5934x5nWKICGduyg39hkGmiisAPMhtWCRwpCZD031tR6FYdLemM0gOzkNXC7G; h=Received:Message-ID:Date:From:Organization:X-Mailer:X-Accept-Language:MIME-Version:To:CC:Subject:References:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:X-ELNK-Trace:X-Originating-IP; Received: from [4.227.99.220] (helo=ix.netcom.com) by elasmtp-scoter.atl.sa.earthlink.net with esmtpa (Exim 4.67) (envelope-from ) id 1Ld9O8-00077Z-RG; Fri, 27 Feb 2009 15:32:54 -0500 Message-ID: <49A715EC.EDD4EDEE@ix.netcom.com> Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2009 14:21:32 -0800 From: "Jeffrey A. Williams" Organization: IDNS and Spokesman for INEGroup X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.8 [en] (Windows NT 5.0; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Russ White References: <72E1E2EDDBD5CBDD92BF837F@eList-eXpress-LLC.local> <499F3A1A.7020205@thinkingcat.com> <51C740C6-2F58-4B5D-BB51-C6C937D5EF35@tcb.net><49A2EED1.6000506@thinkingcat.com><49A300D3.3060501@joelhalpern.com> <49A42885.6010408@thinkingcat.com> <49A62CCA.F710386D@ix.netcom.com> <49A80ED6.1000509@cisco.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-ELNK-Trace: c8e3929e1e9c87a874cfc7ce3b1ad11381c87f5e519606884b2fb22ec80703ab3712c1e73ba2cc87350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c X-Originating-IP: 4.227.99.220 Cc: NomComDiscussion Subject: Re: [ietf-nomcom] announcing list of willing candidates X-BeenThere: ietf-nomcom@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions of possible revisions to the NomCom process List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2009 20:32:32 -0000 Russ and all, Russ White wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > > Comments: I presently see no good reason to circumvent of > > otherwise modify RFC3777. Seems to me that perhaps some > > very good candidates are or could be concerned that if giving > > up some of their privacy/confidentiality even with guarantees of > > protection, is too risky to wish to serve. > > I'm not certain how having an open list would remove someone's privacy > or confidentiality. Just having them on a list would not compromise or remove anyone's privacy or confidentiality. > You're concerned that someone might not put their > name up for fear of being rejected, and hence having their name listed > publicly for consideration for something they don't, eventually, end up > serving for? No not at all. In fact I personally am not concerned at all, but others 'Might" be concerned if information for vetting, ect., were to require PII. That was my point. Sorry if I wasn't clear enough. > > > I'm trying to sort how this would have a negative career impact, or how > this would violate someone's privacy (?), since you have to release a > list to get feedback anyway. What's really at stake is this: > > 1. There is a list of those who are nominated. > > 2. There is a list of those who are under consideration. Both fine and dandy! > > > The differential between the two lists is designed to help the nomcom > sort through smaller subsets of information, making the process more > efficient. What we would be "unhiding" is the differential between these > two lists. I assume this differential is hidden to prevent the > embarrassment of being nominated, and not selected to be among the > "serious candidates." Your conclusion may indeed be correct here. And I would have little doubt that it is. But does it need to be. Why be embarrassed if your not selected/elected for the Chair position of any WG or WG list? Seems to me too much ego is being considered here. > > > What I fail to see is how this is any different from the embarrassment > that might result from being on the "short list," where the nomcom asks > specifically the community for feedback on people, and not being finally > selected. Or the embarrassment of being on the "short list" when the > nomcom asks for additional candidates (the second chance drawing), > implying those already on the list aren't considered "good > enough"--regardless of the reality behind the scenes. You know, why not just have volunteers submit their names and than have a random name selection script make the decision and be done with it? > > > There is an impression in the community that most people are not > considered serious candidates for reasons they can actually control. > After serving on three nomcoms, I can say I don't normally find this to > be the case. The process has definitely moved towards placing far more > weight on the name after the "@" sign in your email address, what your > background is (research/industry/provider/etc), and other factors. Personally I could care little about what candidates background is, as long as it is IT related and related to the subject area even if only remotely. > > > Given this reality, there is absolutely _no_ reason for anyone to be > embarrassed about being nominated and not selected for additional > feedback, etc. I find the entire "second chance drawing" process much > more embarrassing to everyone involved than I do any sort of list unhiding. Agreed! >:) List unhiding or hiding is just silly and childish at best... Sure your always going to have some member or another not liking that Russ White or Jeff Williams ( very unlikely ) is on the list for whatever reasons. Such is life... > > > :-) > > Russ > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32) > Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org > > iEYEARECAAYFAkmoDtYACgkQER27sUhU9OR+KACg3E0Lxda+Jmt5aiyYxCGOXWqq > eqkAnjGeNSeBYZD4KFQpQPX6iNDLJV+1 > =UlV0 > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 284k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "YES WE CAN!" Barack ( Berry ) Obama "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827 From jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com Fri Feb 27 12:34:22 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietf-nomcom@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietf-nomcom@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D12393A6A69 for ; Fri, 27 Feb 2009 12:34:22 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 0.44 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.44 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=2.047, BAYES_00=-2.599, DATE_IN_PAST_12_24=0.992] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id D9kWYKyF9BBL for ; Fri, 27 Feb 2009 12:34:21 -0800 (PST) Received: from elasmtp-banded.atl.sa.earthlink.net (elasmtp-banded.atl.sa.earthlink.net [209.86.89.70]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 89C163A6927 for ; Fri, 27 Feb 2009 12:34:21 -0800 (PST) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=dk20050327; d=ix.netcom.com; b=QYLyAJMJUBXm97btuwkdDDPU4cFCR3VZVqDFDLYnKbX/2Xc8O9xtc+pOHauS+Fxj; h=Received:Message-ID:Date:From:Organization:X-Mailer:X-Accept-Language:MIME-Version:To:CC:Subject:References:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:X-ELNK-Trace:X-Originating-IP; Received: from [4.227.99.220] (helo=ix.netcom.com) by elasmtp-banded.atl.sa.earthlink.net with esmtpa (Exim 4.67) (envelope-from ) id 1Ld9Pu-0000Zc-Ej; Fri, 27 Feb 2009 15:34:43 -0500 Message-ID: <49A71659.6EB0E29A@ix.netcom.com> Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2009 14:23:22 -0800 From: "Jeffrey A. Williams" Organization: IDNS and Spokesman for INEGroup X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.8 [en] (Windows NT 5.0; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Joel M. Halpern" References: <49A300D3.3060501@joelhalpern.com> <72E1E2EDDBD5CBDD92BF837F@eList-eXpress-LLC.local> <499F3A1A.7020205@thinkingcat.com> <51C740C6-2F58-4B5D-BB51-C6C937D5EF35@tcb.net> <49A2EED1.6000506@thinkingcat.com> <6509.1235719272@epsilon.noi.kre.to> <49A8136B.6060404@joelhalpern.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-ELNK-Trace: c8e3929e1e9c87a874cfc7ce3b1ad11381c87f5e5196068814165416d86895fc570c992a811b1c20350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c X-Originating-IP: 4.227.99.220 Cc: NomComDiscussion Subject: Re: [ietf-nomcom] announcing list of willing candidates X-BeenThere: ietf-nomcom@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions of possible revisions to the NomCom process List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2009 20:34:22 -0000 Joel and all, Governments have trouble with maintaining confidentiality because they are lazy or foolish. Just that simple. "Joel M. Halpern" wrote: > I consider that the notion of extending the confidentiality envelope to > more than 1000 people makes a mockery of the notion of confidentiality. > Even national governments have trouble maintaining confidentiality > with much smaller sets of people, and they have legal remedies at their > disposable. It just does not work. > > To elaborate on the obvious question of why do so many people get > solicited, I will point out several things. > Firstly, to get a broad spectrum of feedback, we have to ask a lot of > people. While not as bad as classic bulk mailing, the response rate is > not good. (And frequently, those who are diligently responding can only > say "I don't know this person.") > Secondly, the list of all WG Chairs, all directorate members, and all > authors of I-Ds in an area is actually quite a large group. (And that > is not counting the authors who are working in the area, but don't get > caught by the automated scripts we use.) And there there is the > question of getting cross-area feedback, since ADs often have to work > across areas. > Thirdly, the Nomcom would prefer not to be just asking the leadership, > or just the folks well known to the nomcom. One of the purposes of the > creation of the nominating committee process in the first place was to > avoid having the leadership appoint the leadership. So it is actually > necessary to have some way to reach out to the community. > > One can argue about what threshold of questions makes a mockery of the > process. But any group large enough to do the nomcom any good is also > large enough to leak like a sieve and call into question the > effectiveness of the confidentiality. We are dealing with human beings. > People like to talk. They like to know things. > > And, creating a large group of people, biased towards teh existing > leadership, who know have a better ability to provide input, and leaving > a very large part of community in the dark, unable to provide much > effective input, does not seem fair or appropriate. > > Yours, > Joel > > Robert Elz wrote: > > Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2009 15:02:27 -0500 > > From: "Joel M. Halpern" > > Message-ID: <49A300D3.3060501@joelhalpern.com> > > > > What you said in this message I agree with totally ... > > > > | My own opinion is that we are better off allowing the nomcom to add > > | names. > > > > Absolutely - keep as much flexibility as possible. > > > > | PS: As a minor note, getting credible ringers who are willing and able > > | to be listed, but not willing and able to serve, is harder than it > > | looks. And the ringer-pool leaks like a sieve because folks ask > > | questions of people they know. > > > > Of course, the whole list with ringers idea is silly. > > > > | That's why I want both parts fixed. > > > > Yes, it should all be made clear. But I suspect my way of resolving > > it isn't the same as yours. In particular, from your earlier message... > > > > jmh@joelhalpern.com said: > > | Without being given some sort of list it is very hard for folks to give the > > | nominating committee useful feedback. > > > > It is harder, yes, but not impossible. They may tell you nothing about > > some some nominees, but as I indicated last time, that's useful information > > in itself. > > > > jmh@joelhalpern.com said: > > | The current procedure also requires folks to waste their time. The > > | committee is required to include ringers in the list, so as to avoid > > | disclosing who they are actually considering. > > > > That is simply wrong. Nothing in the procedures requires the nomcom > > to create ringers (in fact, I challenge you to find an instance of the > > word "ringer" (or anything semantically equivalent) in the current > > nomcom procedures. > > > > The nomcom are not required to "avoid disclosing who they are actually > > considering", in fact rfc3777 section 5.12 explicitly allows the > > normal confidentiality rules to be widened to include anyone with > > whom the nomcom consults - provided they agree to keep the information > > confidential. In the absense of that agreement, the current procedures > > require the nomcom's list to remain confidential, and exposing it with > > what is (often) the equivalent of "Fred Flintstone", "George W Bush" > > and a few others added, is NOT keeping it confidential. > > > > I know that you believe that is necessary to send out lists to all kinds > > of people to attempt to get feedback. I disagree. I believe that > > it should be possible to get adequate feedback with the procedures as > > they are now (implemented as written). That is, you can ask authors > > of drafts, WG chairs, etc, if they're prepared to keep some information > > confidential, and if they agree, you can ask specifically about a > > particular nominee for a specific position - you can, or not, also ask > > about other possible positions they may be being considered for. > > > > I have been asked like that in the past, and have no problem at all > > agreeing, and then keeping the info confidential (though at least one > > time I was asked, and agreed to keep info confidential, ringers were > > added anyway - obvious ringers - for what purpose I can't imagine). > > > > Just keep the whole thing confidential, almost all the other problems > > go away - you can add names (by late nominations, or nomcom arm twisting) > > any time you like, and no-one need ever know, there's less chance for > > campaigning, and much less appearance of the whole thing turning into > > a voting system. > > > > The nomcom process should operate like, and be conducted like, any > > other job filling head hunting exercise - and that almost always means > > that people being considered stay confidential until they're appointed. > > > > kre > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > ietf-nomcom mailing list > ietf-nomcom@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-nomcom Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 284k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "YES WE CAN!" Barack ( Berry ) Obama "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827 From jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com Fri Feb 27 12:41:19 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietf-nomcom@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietf-nomcom@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2B4A23A657C for ; Fri, 27 Feb 2009 12:41:19 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 0.327 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.327 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.934, BAYES_00=-2.599, DATE_IN_PAST_12_24=0.992] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id FnZtu2bF4EFD for ; Fri, 27 Feb 2009 12:41:17 -0800 (PST) Received: from elasmtp-masked.atl.sa.earthlink.net (elasmtp-masked.atl.sa.earthlink.net [209.86.89.68]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 992513A6832 for ; Fri, 27 Feb 2009 12:41:17 -0800 (PST) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=dk20050327; d=ix.netcom.com; b=qyijnj2U6IO1OLZUP5T6b4d3PITPk/90zvbVAixyARQP1XFddiVh6+xr6wO8yCNc; h=Received:Message-ID:Date:From:Organization:X-Mailer:X-Accept-Language:MIME-Version:To:CC:Subject:References:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:X-ELNK-Trace:X-Originating-IP; Received: from [4.227.99.220] (helo=ix.netcom.com) by elasmtp-masked.atl.sa.earthlink.net with esmtpa (Exim 4.67) (envelope-from ) id 1Ld9Wa-0002y1-UY; Fri, 27 Feb 2009 15:41:38 -0500 Message-ID: <49A717F8.7BAFE192@ix.netcom.com> Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2009 14:30:16 -0800 From: "Jeffrey A. Williams" Organization: IDNS and Spokesman for INEGroup X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.8 [en] (Windows NT 5.0; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Leslie Daigle References: <49A300D3.3060501@joelhalpern.com> <72E1E2EDDBD5CBDD92BF837F@eList-eXpress-LLC.local> <499F3A1A.7020205@thinkingcat.com> <51C740C6-2F58-4B5D-BB51-C6C937D5EF35@tcb.net> <49A2EED1.6000506@thinkingcat.com> <6509.1235719272@epsilon.noi.kre.to> <49A8136B.6060404@joelhalpern.com> <49A8296E.6060102@thinkingcat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-ELNK-Trace: c8e3929e1e9c87a874cfc7ce3b1ad11381c87f5e51960688c0d2037fb41ea8aff96e70fde9dd19ba350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c X-Originating-IP: 4.227.99.220 Cc: NomComDiscussion Subject: Re: [ietf-nomcom] announcing list of willing candidates X-BeenThere: ietf-nomcom@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions of possible revisions to the NomCom process List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2009 20:41:19 -0000 Leslie and all, Although I can sympathize and partly agree with your consideration here. it is in the very "Feedback" and information desired/wanted or perceived by some as needed where the slippery slope begins. Leslie Daigle wrote: > It would be really interesting to know, if you can share, what the > typical numbers were for actual feedbck on nominees, as a percentage. > > I.e., an average percentage of responses (eg, 40% of people asked for > input actually responded), and an average percentage of responses that > were greater than 10 words long (which tosses out "I don't know this > person" and "This person SUCKS!" -- which are equally uninformative > feedback). > > That's data, and it goes to the level of participation in the feedback > process AND some objective measure of the value of the feedback (is it > more than a 'vote'). > > Leslie. > > Joel M. Halpern wrote: > > I consider that the notion of extending the confidentiality envelope to > > more than 1000 people makes a mockery of the notion of confidentiality. > > Even national governments have trouble maintaining confidentiality > > with much smaller sets of people, and they have legal remedies at their > > disposable. It just does not work. > > > > To elaborate on the obvious question of why do so many people get > > solicited, I will point out several things. > > Firstly, to get a broad spectrum of feedback, we have to ask a lot of > > people. While not as bad as classic bulk mailing, the response rate is > > not good. (And frequently, those who are diligently responding can only > > say "I don't know this person.") > > Secondly, the list of all WG Chairs, all directorate members, and all > > authors of I-Ds in an area is actually quite a large group. (And that > > is not counting the authors who are working in the area, but don't get > > caught by the automated scripts we use.) And there there is the > > question of getting cross-area feedback, since ADs often have to work > > across areas. > > Thirdly, the Nomcom would prefer not to be just asking the leadership, > > or just the folks well known to the nomcom. One of the purposes of the > > creation of the nominating committee process in the first place was to > > avoid having the leadership appoint the leadership. So it is actually > > necessary to have some way to reach out to the community. > > > > One can argue about what threshold of questions makes a mockery of the > > process. But any group large enough to do the nomcom any good is also > > large enough to leak like a sieve and call into question the > > effectiveness of the confidentiality. We are dealing with human beings. > > People like to talk. They like to know things. > > > > And, creating a large group of people, biased towards teh existing > > leadership, who know have a better ability to provide input, and leaving > > a very large part of community in the dark, unable to provide much > > effective input, does not seem fair or appropriate. > > > > Yours, > > Joel > > > > Robert Elz wrote: > >> Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2009 15:02:27 -0500 > >> From: "Joel M. Halpern" > >> Message-ID: <49A300D3.3060501@joelhalpern.com> > >> > >> What you said in this message I agree with totally ... > >> > >> | My own opinion is that we are better off allowing the nomcom to > >> add | names. > >> > >> Absolutely - keep as much flexibility as possible. > >> > >> | PS: As a minor note, getting credible ringers who are willing and > >> able | to be listed, but not willing and able to serve, is harder > >> than it | looks. And the ringer-pool leaks like a sieve because > >> folks ask | questions of people they know. > >> > >> Of course, the whole list with ringers idea is silly. > >> > >> | That's why I want both parts fixed. > >> > >> Yes, it should all be made clear. But I suspect my way of resolving > >> it isn't the same as yours. In particular, from your earlier message... > >> > >> jmh@joelhalpern.com said: > >> | Without being given some sort of list it is very hard for folks to > >> give the > >> | nominating committee useful feedback. > >> > >> It is harder, yes, but not impossible. They may tell you nothing about > >> some some nominees, but as I indicated last time, that's useful > >> information > >> in itself. > >> > >> jmh@joelhalpern.com said: > >> | The current procedure also requires folks to waste their time. The > >> | committee is required to include ringers in the list, so as to avoid > >> | disclosing who they are actually considering. > >> That is simply wrong. Nothing in the procedures requires the nomcom > >> to create ringers (in fact, I challenge you to find an instance of the > >> word "ringer" (or anything semantically equivalent) in the current > >> nomcom procedures. > >> > >> The nomcom are not required to "avoid disclosing who they are actually > >> considering", in fact rfc3777 section 5.12 explicitly allows the > >> normal confidentiality rules to be widened to include anyone with > >> whom the nomcom consults - provided they agree to keep the information > >> confidential. In the absense of that agreement, the current procedures > >> require the nomcom's list to remain confidential, and exposing it with > >> what is (often) the equivalent of "Fred Flintstone", "George W Bush" > >> and a few others added, is NOT keeping it confidential. > >> > >> I know that you believe that is necessary to send out lists to all kinds > >> of people to attempt to get feedback. I disagree. I believe that > >> it should be possible to get adequate feedback with the procedures as > >> they are now (implemented as written). That is, you can ask authors > >> of drafts, WG chairs, etc, if they're prepared to keep some information > >> confidential, and if they agree, you can ask specifically about a > >> particular nominee for a specific position - you can, or not, also ask > >> about other possible positions they may be being considered for. > >> > >> I have been asked like that in the past, and have no problem at all > >> agreeing, and then keeping the info confidential (though at least one > >> time I was asked, and agreed to keep info confidential, ringers were > >> added anyway - obvious ringers - for what purpose I can't imagine). > >> > >> Just keep the whole thing confidential, almost all the other problems > >> go away - you can add names (by late nominations, or nomcom arm twisting) > >> any time you like, and no-one need ever know, there's less chance for > >> campaigning, and much less appearance of the whole thing turning into > >> a voting system. > >> > >> The nomcom process should operate like, and be conducted like, any > >> other job filling head hunting exercise - and that almost always means > >> that people being considered stay confidential until they're appointed. > >> > >> kre > >> > >> > > > > _______________________________________________ > > ietf-nomcom mailing list > > ietf-nomcom@ietf.org > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-nomcom > > -- > > ------------------------------------------------------------------- > "Reality: > Yours to discover." > -- ThinkingCat > Leslie Daigle > leslie@thinkingcat.com > ------------------------------------------------------------------- > _______________________________________________ > ietf-nomcom mailing list > ietf-nomcom@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-nomcom Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 284k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "YES WE CAN!" Barack ( Berry ) Obama "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827 From brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com Fri Feb 27 13:11:46 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietf-nomcom@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietf-nomcom@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id ED6423A67F3 for ; Fri, 27 Feb 2009 13:11:45 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.549 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.549 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.050, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id WLSm5A5rvohQ for ; Fri, 27 Feb 2009 13:11:45 -0800 (PST) Received: from ti-out-0910.google.com (ti-out-0910.google.com [209.85.142.186]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BF6AA3A68AB for ; Fri, 27 Feb 2009 13:11:44 -0800 (PST) Received: by ti-out-0910.google.com with SMTP id 11so1596282tim.25 for ; Fri, 27 Feb 2009 13:12:06 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from :organization:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject:references :in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=ymAJtZrQryimy/CgB/lM/tdLHOe7BkPOFD3+s3Nt6EU=; b=DFqcjF6CSNoFY7w9FV0l9AS0rN2jN8flQKjCeHxxqd62MIeSetq8mDKmCrEmY2Vy5h NmocDADwysVf+ZSayofE2HMoOuU3fHexZ9QXKytPM1IweCw/c1UW84uYvbYYEHzmLiP+ VAFi88+ACOD+GU6XFpL/w6TzJdvN8H1oAhSjY= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:organization:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc :subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; b=xrAU+gF4rgvCJ1+uzEwjuuLvnxpOcuYcjhbYYm293bUfFGsbNQh/N/ZJxZDCEyxfKv 3MBTYcSuuEE27FZOeXzi6T8+CUZCaamgxLIOvZxZch2hwU/lV7cIBlDTvqSl26DDCL6k ZIiVnxkB2hXwxhMZpDJp36YHEwgtwXzc84B6U= Received: by 10.110.62.4 with SMTP id k4mr4297660tia.52.1235769126171; Fri, 27 Feb 2009 13:12:06 -0800 (PST) Received: from ?10.1.1.4? (118-92-108-31.dsl.dyn.ihug.co.nz [118.92.108.31]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id w5sm2199157tib.25.2009.02.27.13.12.03 (version=SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Fri, 27 Feb 2009 13:12:05 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <49A85720.9010303@gmail.com> Date: Sat, 28 Feb 2009 10:12:00 +1300 From: Brian E Carpenter Organization: University of Auckland User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.6 (Windows/20070728) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Leslie Daigle References: <49A300D3.3060501@joelhalpern.com> <72E1E2EDDBD5CBDD92BF837F@eList-eXpress-LLC.local> <499F3A1A.7020205@thinkingcat.com> <51C740C6-2F58-4B5D-BB51-C6C937D5EF35@tcb.net> <49A2EED1.6000506@thinkingcat.com> <6509.1235719272@epsilon.noi.kre.to> <49A8136B.6060404@joelhalpern.com> <49A8296E.6060102@thinkingcat.com> In-Reply-To: <49A8296E.6060102@thinkingcat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: NomComDiscussion Subject: Re: [ietf-nomcom] announcing list of willing candidates X-BeenThere: ietf-nomcom@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions of possible revisions to the NomCom process List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2009 21:11:46 -0000 Hi Leslie, On 2009-02-28 06:57, Leslie Daigle wrote: > > It would be really interesting to know, if you can share, what the > typical numbers were for actual feedbck on nominees, as a percentage. Yes, that would be quite interesting. If the answer is anywhere near 50% I'd say we are doing well, given the typical voting rates in democracies where voting isn't compulsory. > > I.e., an average percentage of responses (eg, 40% of people asked for > input actually responded), and an average percentage of responses that > were greater than 10 words long (which tosses out "I don't know this > person" and "This person SUCKS!" -- which are equally uninformative > feedback). I think that "I don't know this person" is actually useful input if it comes from a large percentage of respondents. The IETF is a social structure, after all. I agree that "This person SUCKS!" is useless, but I also believe that a short comment (either positive or negative) is pretty useful as long as it gives a reason ("This person is [not] a good candidate because s/he is [un]willing to listen to other opinions."). In fact I pity the NomCom if people write more than 2 or 3 sentences per candidate, especially if we increase the number of comments by opening up the list. Brian From jmh@joelhalpern.com Fri Feb 27 13:32:32 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietf-nomcom@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietf-nomcom@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 779693A689F for ; Fri, 27 Feb 2009 13:32:32 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.497 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.497 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.102, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id kUQesmPdgrXz for ; Fri, 27 Feb 2009 13:32:31 -0800 (PST) Received: from hermes.mail.tigertech.net (hermes.mail.tigertech.net [64.62.209.72]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9FFFE3A67B6 for ; Fri, 27 Feb 2009 13:32:31 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hermes.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id CBDCD430219 for ; Fri, 27 Feb 2009 13:32:54 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at hermes.tigertech.net Received: from [10.10.10.100] (pool-71-161-50-192.clppva.btas.verizon.net [71.161.50.192]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by hermes.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1E7244301EF for ; Fri, 27 Feb 2009 13:32:53 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <49A85C02.9070102@joelhalpern.com> Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2009 16:32:50 -0500 From: "Joel M. Halpern" User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.19 (Windows/20081209) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: NomComDiscussion References: <49A300D3.3060501@joelhalpern.com> <72E1E2EDDBD5CBDD92BF837F@eList-eXpress-LLC.local> <499F3A1A.7020205@thinkingcat.com> <51C740C6-2F58-4B5D-BB51-C6C937D5EF35@tcb.net> <49A2EED1.6000506@thinkingcat.com> <6509.1235719272@epsilon.noi.kre.to> <49A8136B.6060404@joelhalpern.com> <49A8296E.6060102@thinkingcat.com> <49A85720.9010303@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <49A85720.9010303@gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [ietf-nomcom] announcing list of willing candidates X-BeenThere: ietf-nomcom@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions of possible revisions to the NomCom process List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2009 21:32:32 -0000 I can safely say that the response rate is nowhere near 50%. While we would have been thrilled at the interest, the committee would have actually been seriously taxed to read that number of meaningful responses. The real response rate was MUCH less than that. The following is intended more as a summary of information that may be useful for some folks, and maybe should go somewhere. In terms of substance, several observations. While in theory "never heard of the guy" is useful, in practice it turns out to be unhelpful. The most useful input was material of the form Person X has the following characteristics ... which I believe mean that person {is / is not / might be / might not be } a good fit for position X. Often, such input include strong and weak points. Getting input that says "This person is good / bad for simple reason X" Is still quite helpful. Getting input that says "Person Z is great / a disaster for position Q" without any explanation of why is not particularly useful. Either we know the problem, in which case the feedback does not help. Or we don't, in which case the feedback leaves us puzzled. (Yes, we can send back a "why?", which means this is not completely useless feedback.) The other difficult to rank feedback we get is orderings of nominees. When coupled with detailed comments, this can serve as a nice summary of the comments. By itself, it is basically unhelpful. The exercise is not voting. We are looking for information to help the committee. Note that the difficulty of providing useful feedback is one of the reasons I would prefer not to have to use ringers, which is one of the topics of this discussion. Yours, with apologies for the digression, Joel Brian E Carpenter wrote: > Hi Leslie, > > On 2009-02-28 06:57, Leslie Daigle wrote: >> It would be really interesting to know, if you can share, what the >> typical numbers were for actual feedbck on nominees, as a percentage. > > Yes, that would be quite interesting. If the answer is anywhere > near 50% I'd say we are doing well, given the typical voting rates > in democracies where voting isn't compulsory. > >> I.e., an average percentage of responses (eg, 40% of people asked for >> input actually responded), and an average percentage of responses that >> were greater than 10 words long (which tosses out "I don't know this >> person" and "This person SUCKS!" -- which are equally uninformative >> feedback). > > I think that "I don't know this person" is actually useful input if > it comes from a large percentage of respondents. The IETF is a social > structure, after all. > > I agree that "This person SUCKS!" is useless, but I also believe that > a short comment (either positive or negative) is pretty useful as long > as it gives a reason ("This person is [not] a good candidate because > s/he is [un]willing to listen to other opinions."). In fact I pity the > NomCom if people write more than 2 or 3 sentences per candidate, > especially if we increase the number of comments by opening up > the list. > > Brian > From jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com Fri Feb 27 14:54:58 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietf-nomcom@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietf-nomcom@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BFA8B28C150 for ; Fri, 27 Feb 2009 14:54:58 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 0.225 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.225 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.832, BAYES_00=-2.599, DATE_IN_PAST_12_24=0.992] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ZZBt8dH8BjUM for ; Fri, 27 Feb 2009 14:54:57 -0800 (PST) Received: from elasmtp-kukur.atl.sa.earthlink.net (elasmtp-kukur.atl.sa.earthlink.net [209.86.89.65]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9E22B28C142 for ; Fri, 27 Feb 2009 14:54:57 -0800 (PST) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=dk20050327; d=ix.netcom.com; b=CSLm2QYyKYtHxD+2aRqsfbN18w1WClPaNIUXITiaJoQ6S4MDkthifiz+0x2bc3XC; h=Received:Message-ID:Date:From:Organization:X-Mailer:X-Accept-Language:MIME-Version:To:CC:Subject:References:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:X-ELNK-Trace:X-Originating-IP; Received: from [4.227.101.130] (helo=ix.netcom.com) by elasmtp-kukur.atl.sa.earthlink.net with esmtpa (Exim 4.67) (envelope-from ) id 1LdBby-0000U8-I0; Fri, 27 Feb 2009 17:55:19 -0500 Message-ID: <49A7374D.7F034DB0@ix.netcom.com> Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2009 16:43:57 -0800 From: "Jeffrey A. Williams" Organization: IDNS and Spokesman for INEGroup X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.8 [en] (Windows NT 5.0; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Brian E Carpenter References: <49A300D3.3060501@joelhalpern.com> <72E1E2EDDBD5CBDD92BF837F@eList-eXpress-LLC.local> <499F3A1A.7020205@thinkingcat.com> <51C740C6-2F58-4B5D-BB51-C6C937D5EF35@tcb.net> <49A2EED1.6000506@thinkingcat.com> <6509.1235719272@epsilon.noi.kre.to> <49A8136B.6060404@joelhalpern.com> <49A8296E.6060102@thinkingcat.com> <49A85720.9010303@gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-ELNK-Trace: c8e3929e1e9c87a874cfc7ce3b1ad11381c87f5e51960688ecd83a2d646287ce717611c8373fb491350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c X-Originating-IP: 4.227.101.130 Cc: NomComDiscussion Subject: Re: [ietf-nomcom] announcing list of willing candidates X-BeenThere: ietf-nomcom@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions of possible revisions to the NomCom process List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2009 22:54:58 -0000 Brian and all, Brian E Carpenter wrote: > Hi Leslie, > > On 2009-02-28 06:57, Leslie Daigle wrote: > > > > It would be really interesting to know, if you can share, what the > > typical numbers were for actual feedbck on nominees, as a percentage. > > Yes, that would be quite interesting. If the answer is anywhere > near 50% I'd say we are doing well, given the typical voting rates > in democracies where voting isn't compulsory. > > > > > I.e., an average percentage of responses (eg, 40% of people asked for > > input actually responded), and an average percentage of responses that > > were greater than 10 words long (which tosses out "I don't know this > > person" and "This person SUCKS!" -- which are equally uninformative > > feedback). > > I think that "I don't know this person" is actually useful input if > it comes from a large percentage of respondents. The IETF is a social > structure, after all. Social structure? Gee, Ive been mistaken for year than. I thought the IETF was an Internet Engenerring Task Force, not a social engenerring body. > > > I agree that "This person SUCKS!" is useless, but I also believe that > a short comment (either positive or negative) is pretty useful as long > as it gives a reason ("This person is [not] a good candidate because > s/he is [un]willing to listen to other opinions."). In fact I pity the > NomCom if people write more than 2 or 3 sentences per candidate, > especially if we increase the number of comments by opening up > the list. Openness should be rule rather than the exception. > > > Brian > _______________________________________________ > ietf-nomcom mailing list > ietf-nomcom@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-nomcom Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 284k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "YES WE CAN!" Barack ( Berry ) Obama "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827