From leslie@thinkingcat.com Wed Apr 1 13:22:38 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 58D243A6C0F for ; Wed, 1 Apr 2009 13:22:38 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.493 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.493 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.106, 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 XEJ1PMsGfs0e for ; Wed, 1 Apr 2009 13:22:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: from zeke.ecotroph.net (zeke.ecotroph.net [70.164.19.155]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 59BF53A67C1 for ; Wed, 1 Apr 2009 13:22:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: from isocpwtravel01.isoc.local ([::ffff:209.183.196.229]) (AUTH: PLAIN leslie, SSL: TLSv1/SSLv3,256bits,AES256-SHA) by zeke.ecotroph.net with esmtp; Wed, 01 Apr 2009 16:23:35 -0400 id 015AC505.49D3CD48.00005790 Message-ID: <49D3CD3F.6080301@thinkingcat.com> Date: Wed, 01 Apr 2009 16:23:27 -0400 From: Leslie Daigle User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.21 (Macintosh/20090302) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Spencer Dawkins References: <802A89216BB2497B846B0364BD33C01F@china.huawei.com> In-Reply-To: <802A89216BB2497B846B0364BD33C01F@china.huawei.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: NomComDiscussion Subject: Re: [ietf-nomcom] "Lobbying" 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: Wed, 01 Apr 2009 20:22:38 -0000 Hi, > As author (on an individual draft), I was OK with just assuming that the > community could provide appropriate back pressure (unacceptable NomCom > behaviors are counterproductive and don't work), but am now wondering if > the concern is that people may devise behaviors that aren't acceptable, > BUT SEEM TO WORK? If that's the concern, I can go there, too, but if > it's not, I'd rather not try to specify acceptable behavior in a lot of > detail. > > Thoughts? I'm fine with the "not in much detail" goal, as I agree with Fred's points that trying to capture a lot about what NOT to do would be undesireable. However, I think we will spend a lot of churn on ietf-discuss each year if we don't get some clarity about what to do (or not do). "Can you believe so-and-so just said X about their candidacy?". And so on. Trying to start simple, how about: 0/ Reminder that WG mailing lists are for working group work only -- i.e., lobbying or support for candidates is strictly off topic. 1/ Ad hominem attacks are off limit on *any* IETF mailing list 2/ Expressions of interest should/should not/may/may not/ be posted to ietf-discuss 3/ Comments on a candidate's appropriateness for a role should be send only to the NomCom. Leslie. Spencer Dawkins wrote: > So ... Russ will be posting the notes from last Wednesday's plenary, but > I'd like to kick off one topic where I'm not excited about the direction > we might be going... this was the only hum that surprised me. > > Russ gets to make the consensus calls, but I'm pretty sure that I saw > more people humming for "saying something about what is acceptable > NomCom behavior", than humming against it, during discussion of > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-dawkins-nomcom-openlist-02. > > I'm pretty sure that we do have some community norms that nominees might > thank us for pointing out ("sending out e-mail that says Company X > endorses Candidate Y is, at best, unproductive and might be > counterproductive"), but I'm concerned that trying to specify what is/is > not acceptable NomCom behavior in some detail probably underestimates > the ability of IETF participants to devise unacceptable behaviors... > > :-( > > As author (on an individual draft), I was OK with just assuming that the > community could provide appropriate back pressure (unacceptable NomCom > behaviors are counterproductive and don't work), but am now wondering if > the concern is that people may devise behaviors that aren't acceptable, > BUT SEEM TO WORK? If that's the concern, I can go there, too, but if > it's not, I'd rather not try to specify acceptable behavior in a lot of > detail. > > Thoughts? > > Thanks, > > 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 narten@us.ibm.com Wed Apr 1 13:50:58 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 EA2FD3A6BB0 for ; Wed, 1 Apr 2009 13:50:58 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.989 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.989 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.610, 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 4j4Plnu+mecN for ; Wed, 1 Apr 2009 13:50:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: from e8.ny.us.ibm.com (e8.ny.us.ibm.com [32.97.182.138]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 231623A6BAB for ; Wed, 1 Apr 2009 13:50:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: from d01relay04.pok.ibm.com (d01relay04.pok.ibm.com [9.56.227.236]) by e8.ny.us.ibm.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id n31KhU7q002675 for ; Wed, 1 Apr 2009 16:43:30 -0400 Received: from d01av01.pok.ibm.com (d01av01.pok.ibm.com [9.56.224.215]) by d01relay04.pok.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/NCO v9.2) with ESMTP id n31Kpv2I182834 for ; Wed, 1 Apr 2009 16:51:57 -0400 Received: from d01av01.pok.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1]) by d01av01.pok.ibm.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.13.3) with ESMTP id n31Kpv4W018682 for ; Wed, 1 Apr 2009 16:51:57 -0400 Received: from cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com (sig-9-49-146-166.mts.ibm.com [9.49.146.166]) by d01av01.pok.ibm.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id n31Kpt6P018544 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Wed, 1 Apr 2009 16:51:56 -0400 Received: from cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com (cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com [127.0.0.1]) by cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com (8.14.2/8.12.5) with ESMTP id n31KpsoH029820; Wed, 1 Apr 2009 16:51:55 -0400 Message-Id: <200904012051.n31KpsoH029820@cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com> To: "Spencer Dawkins" In-reply-to: <802A89216BB2497B846B0364BD33C01F@china.huawei.com> References: <802A89216BB2497B846B0364BD33C01F@china.huawei.com> Comments: In-reply-to "Spencer Dawkins" message dated "Tue, 31 Mar 2009 17:21:32 -0500." Date: Wed, 01 Apr 2009 16:51:54 -0400 From: Thomas Narten Cc: NomComDiscussion Subject: Re: [ietf-nomcom] "Lobbying" 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: Wed, 01 Apr 2009 20:50:59 -0000 Well, one thing I would not like to see is public discussions about any individual's fitness for serving. By public, I mean on any mailing list that is generally open and/or publically archived. It's one thing to be allowed to speak/comment privately about specific individuals (and be able to speak with colleagues, etc.). It's quite another to start having discussion spill out into the public. After all, we are fudamentally talking about personnel decisions. One would think the above would go without saying, but I fear it will happen if there are no rules at all. Not all of IETF "participants" play nice. Thomas From housley@vigilsec.com Wed Apr 1 14:01:23 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 60FFA28C0CE; Wed, 1 Apr 2009 14:01:23 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.456 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.456 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.143, 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 tZaf0x7COU1z; Wed, 1 Apr 2009 14:01:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: from odin.smetech.net (mail.smetech.net [208.254.26.82]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 812CF28C18E; Wed, 1 Apr 2009 14:01:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (unknown [208.254.26.81]) by odin.smetech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7D55F9A4726; Wed, 1 Apr 2009 17:02:43 -0400 (EDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at smetech.net Received: from odin.smetech.net ([208.254.26.82]) by localhost (ronin.smetech.net [208.254.26.81]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 0haYt1XnQEZ6; Wed, 1 Apr 2009 17:02:21 -0400 (EDT) Received: from THINKPADR52.vigilsec.com (pool-71-191-197-15.washdc.fios.verizon.net [71.191.197.15]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by odin.smetech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id D64389A47A7; Wed, 1 Apr 2009 17:02:41 -0400 (EDT) X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.1.0.9 Date: Wed, 01 Apr 2009 17:02:18 -0400 To: "Spencer Dawkins" From: Russ Housley In-Reply-To: <600AAED8B1144A63BBD23CAEF8C39BFC@china.huawei.com> References: <20090401152817.502623A6B13@core3.amsl.com> <6FEDBBA80C7A489B9312D10E2D242325@china.huawei.com> <20090401171222.7262B9A4726@odin.smetech.net> <600AAED8B1144A63BBD23CAEF8C39BFC@china.huawei.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Message-Id: <20090401210241.D64389A47A7@odin.smetech.net> Cc: ietf-nomcom@ietf.org, ietf@ietf.org Subject: Re: [ietf-nomcom] IETF NomCom Changes 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: Wed, 01 Apr 2009 21:01:23 -0000 Spencer: I made the suggested change to the minutes. Russ At 01:34 PM 4/1/2009, Spencer Dawkins wrote: >Your memory matches mine. Do the notes need to reflect "nominee" >behavior, instead of "NomCom" behavior? > >Just to make sure we're on the same page ... Joel reminded me after >I'd already submitted a couple of versions of openlist that you're a >nominee if NomCom is considering you, a candidate if NomCom is >submitting you to a confirming body, and a successful candidate if >the confirming body confirms you - so I'm assuming that you meant >"nominee" in your post. Please let me know if you meant "candidate", of course. > > From 3777 Section 2: > > candidate: A nominee who has been selected to be considered for > confirmation by a confirming body. > > confirmed candidate: A candidate that has been reviewed and approved > by a confirming body. > > nominee: A person who is being or has been considered for one or more > open positions of the IESG or IAB. > >Thanks, > >Spencer > > >>I believe the hum was about "lobbying" behavior of the candidates >>on the open list toward NomCom and the rest of the community. >> >>Russ >> >> >>At 12:38 PM 4/1/2009, Spencer Dawkins wrote: >>>Hi, Russ, >>> >>>I may have misunderstood (I was presenting, so not taking good >>>notes during the NomCom discussions), but I'm looking at >>> >>> Russ asks who believes that we need to do anything that >>> describes what is acceptable NomCom behaviour. >>> >>> many hums >>> >>> Russ asks who doesn't believe this is necessary? >>> >>> a few more hums >>> >>>and remembering that this part of the conversation was about >>>behavior beyond the NomCom (lobbying, etc) - behavior of nominees, >>>behavior of people who have opinions about the people on the nominee list, etc. >>> >>>This was certainly my understanding from Leslie's post on >>>"openlist", on the NomCom mailing list. >>> >>>Should I go listen to the audio? >>> >>>Thanks, >>> >>>Spencer >>> >>>>Several changes to the NomCom process were discussed during the plenary >>>>session last Wednesday. The minutes have been posted so that anyone that >>>>was not at the plenary session can catch up. The minutes can be found >>>>here: >>>> >>>> http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/09mar/minutes/plenaryw.txt >>>> >>>>The discussion will continue on the ietf-nomcom@ietf.org mail list. >>>> >>>>Thanks, >>>> Russ >>>>_______________________________________________ >>>>IETF-Announce mailing list >>>>IETF-Announce@ietf.org >>>>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-announce >> > From jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com Wed Apr 1 17:58:43 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 10FDA3A6821 for ; Wed, 1 Apr 2009 17:58:43 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 0.8 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.8 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.548, BAYES_20=-0.74, 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 XtalPAIe6k7g for ; Wed, 1 Apr 2009 17:58:42 -0700 (PDT) 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 0A59C3A67CC for ; Wed, 1 Apr 2009 17:58:42 -0700 (PDT) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=dk20050327; d=ix.netcom.com; b=okdNmnDZM/Cacke6f5IkfPDByO9oo7zU2ndXaYfbBw0P3d5yUqBqOetwFOzIfDPX; 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 [4.227.102.192] (helo=ix.netcom.com) by elasmtp-scoter.atl.sa.earthlink.net with esmtpa (Exim 4.67) (envelope-from ) id 1LpBHR-0003Tz-Jd; Wed, 01 Apr 2009 20:59:42 -0400 Message-ID: <49D2D5B9.99C8C92E@ix.netcom.com> Date: Tue, 31 Mar 2009 19:47:21 -0700 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: Thomas Narten References: <802A89216BB2497B846B0364BD33C01F@china.huawei.com> <200904012051.n31KpsoH029820@cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-ELNK-Trace: c8e3929e1e9c87a874cfc7ce3b1ad11381c87f5e51960688c0b7c6ebe7eff693f6213f378fe3f5b9350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c X-Originating-IP: 4.227.102.192 Cc: NomComDiscussion Subject: Re: [ietf-nomcom] "Lobbying" 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, 02 Apr 2009 00:58:43 -0000 Thomas and all, Sorry Thomas I disagree on the grounds of what you seemingly are indicating however nuanced is far less than open and transparent. As such accountability becomes far less evident or even in existence. Thomas Narten wrote: > Well, one thing I would not like to see is public discussions about > any individual's fitness for serving. By public, I mean on any mailing > list that is generally open and/or publically archived. > > It's one thing to be allowed to speak/comment privately about specific > individuals (and be able to speak with colleagues, etc.). It's quite > another to start having discussion spill out into the public. > > After all, we are fudamentally talking about personnel decisions. > > One would think the above would go without saying, but I fear it will > happen if there are no rules at all. Not all of IETF "participants" > play nice. > > Thomas > _______________________________________________ > 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 galvin@elistx.com Thu Apr 2 04:15:05 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 31C113A6BAE for ; Thu, 2 Apr 2009 04:15:05 -0700 (PDT) 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 YZJ0zA4GSAcG for ; Thu, 2 Apr 2009 04:15:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ee01.elistx.com (ee01.elistx.com [67.154.239.222]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6C8423A6B69 for ; Thu, 2 Apr 2009 04:15:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by elistx.com (PMDF V6.3-2x2 #31546) with ESMTP id <0KHH0018K0J5QL@elistx.com> for ietf-nomcom@ietf.org; Thu, 02 Apr 2009 07:13:53 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 02 Apr 2009 07:17:34 -0400 From: James M Galvin In-reply-to: <49D3CD3F.6080301@thinkingcat.com> To: Leslie Daigle , Spencer Dawkins Message-id: <59C01736E259B7E1F5C37570@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: <802A89216BB2497B846B0364BD33C01F@china.huawei.com> <49D3CD3F.6080301@thinkingcat.com> Cc: NomComDiscussion Subject: Re: [ietf-nomcom] "Lobbying" 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, 02 Apr 2009 11:15:05 -0000 -- On April 1, 2009 4:23:27 PM -0400 Leslie Daigle wrote regarding Re: [ietf-nomcom] "Lobbying" -- I like this. A few comments inline. > Trying to start simple, how about: > > 0/ Reminder that WG mailing lists are for working group work only -- > i.e., lobbying or support for candidates is strictly off topic. I'm not aware that this is a stated policy anywhere, although I suppose one could argue that it is understood I suppose. However, most working group mailing list welcome messages don't even say this. What about lists that do not belong to a working group, or belong to a concluded working group? And I presume you intend for BOF lists to be included as a "working group" in this context. > 1/ Ad hominem attacks are off limit on *any* IETF mailing list > > 2/ Expressions of interest should/should not/may/may not/ be posted > to ietf-discuss I think "may" and I would include expressions non-interest. > 3/ Comments on a candidate's appropriateness for a role should be > send only to the NomCom. Absolutely! Jim From barryleiba.mailing.lists@gmail.com Thu Apr 2 07:07:04 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 C093228C1F3 for ; Thu, 2 Apr 2009 07:07:04 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.219 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.219 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.242, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622] 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 DCckbWj2BNFk for ; Thu, 2 Apr 2009 07:07:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-fx0-f158.google.com (mail-fx0-f158.google.com [209.85.220.158]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CBE0A28C1C2 for ; Thu, 2 Apr 2009 07:07:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: by fxm2 with SMTP id 2so542887fxm.37 for ; Thu, 02 Apr 2009 07:08:04 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:sender:received:in-reply-to :references:date:x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:cc :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=rOHJ67T7N0N2Tod/Q55BS5kcWz5UV74BN3v7AFvOg7s=; b=KZ0K2enm/1tpeSH2S6WwDpqveSrV+cPiSKzXzueaXPK3XDGoCZ3eajjhLPlB68KdPL uTegfK64PmVC/qzaLukzJdceGpm9q+sEkJ4FVJrWx+x8WC1eZAmUzR5KppLefQN2Os1H vJAl8d4AderWGVCMnAI+PSCYhknUvhMLj1/yM= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; b=rwsnEnvpj3UB0bZkPhR8esL3gWjHdYl4G8qCW9fJG8TGuuSqKhROf1chccPd20Ds1w zt5WTG8VysJFeG252y2JcW106pdumAgABTlOx5fw5KknS/q3MjXcnFvoZ5RY/eUoaZ43 iF/9byzNfGmCJ1/FpDFqj0fC2QelxoSIOrabQ= MIME-Version: 1.0 Sender: barryleiba.mailing.lists@gmail.com Received: by 10.223.108.75 with SMTP id e11mr51462fap.51.1238681283845; Thu, 02 Apr 2009 07:08:03 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <59C01736E259B7E1F5C37570@eList-eXpress-LLC.local> References: <802A89216BB2497B846B0364BD33C01F@china.huawei.com> <49D3CD3F.6080301@thinkingcat.com> <59C01736E259B7E1F5C37570@eList-eXpress-LLC.local> Date: Thu, 2 Apr 2009 10:08:03 -0400 X-Google-Sender-Auth: ccecce737b372467 Message-ID: <6c9fcc2a0904020708j48b2e875uaa785f7451f94ff9@mail.gmail.com> From: Barry Leiba To: James M Galvin Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: NomComDiscussion Subject: Re: [ietf-nomcom] "Lobbying" 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, 02 Apr 2009 14:07:04 -0000 >> 2/ Expressions of interest should/should not/may/may not/ be posted >> to ietf-discuss > > I think "may" and I would include expressions non-interest. > >> 3/ Comments on a candidate's appropriateness for a role should be >> send only to the NomCom. > > Absolutely! Allowing "expressions of interest" brings up questions of where the line is drawn. From a simple "I'd like to be the Banana Area Director" to a full campaign for the position ("If I were the Banana Area Director, I would make sure we worked on pesticide standards, because the area hasn't spent enough effort on those issues and..."), there's a lot of ground. How far can one go before one crosses the line? And consider that some will think that allowing statements should mean allowing rebuttals. That will quickly get us into airing comments on the candidate. Barry From leslie@thinkingcat.com Thu Apr 2 07:24:08 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 F11F63A6A09 for ; Thu, 2 Apr 2009 07:24:08 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.501 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.501 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.098, 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 TZwEKJ0ocLor for ; Thu, 2 Apr 2009 07:24:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: from zeke.ecotroph.net (zeke.ecotroph.net [70.164.19.155]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 679133A688A for ; Thu, 2 Apr 2009 07:24:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: from isocpwtravel01.isoc.local ([::ffff:209.183.196.229]) (AUTH: PLAIN leslie, SSL: TLSv1/SSLv3,256bits,AES256-SHA) by zeke.ecotroph.net with esmtp; Thu, 02 Apr 2009 10:25:07 -0400 id 015AC526.49D4CAC3.0000125C Message-ID: <49D4CABA.4020707@thinkingcat.com> Date: Thu, 02 Apr 2009 10:24:58 -0400 From: Leslie Daigle User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.21 (Macintosh/20090302) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Barry Leiba References: <802A89216BB2497B846B0364BD33C01F@china.huawei.com> <49D3CD3F.6080301@thinkingcat.com> <59C01736E259B7E1F5C37570@eList-eXpress-LLC.local> <6c9fcc2a0904020708j48b2e875uaa785f7451f94ff9@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <6c9fcc2a0904020708j48b2e875uaa785f7451f94ff9@mail.gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: NomComDiscussion , James M Galvin Subject: Re: [ietf-nomcom] "Lobbying" 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, 02 Apr 2009 14:24:09 -0000 So, a thought that I refrained from expressing in the previous mail: the NomCom could define that, in the same way they define the questionnaire every year. If any statements of interest are to be supported, perhaps a lot of angst would be removed if the overall process was: . NomCom defines candidate questionnaire . NomCom publishes questionnaires submitted Thus -- willing candidates are describing themselves to the NomCom and to the community in one go. And it gives the community something to comment on to the NomCom. Or else -- no statements of interest should be allowed and *all* comments go only to the NomCom. Leslie. Barry Leiba wrote: >>> 2/ Expressions of interest should/should not/may/may not/ be posted >>> to ietf-discuss >> I think "may" and I would include expressions non-interest. >> >>> 3/ Comments on a candidate's appropriateness for a role should be >>> send only to the NomCom. >> Absolutely! > > Allowing "expressions of interest" brings up questions of where the > line is drawn. From a simple "I'd like to be the Banana Area > Director" to a full campaign for the position ("If I were the Banana > Area Director, I would make sure we worked on pesticide standards, > because the area hasn't spent enough effort on those issues and..."), > there's a lot of ground. How far can one go before one crosses the > line? > > And consider that some will think that allowing statements should mean > allowing rebuttals. That will quickly get us into airing comments on > the candidate. > > Barry > -- ------------------------------------------------------------------- "Reality: Yours to discover." -- ThinkingCat Leslie Daigle leslie@thinkingcat.com ------------------------------------------------------------------- From jmh@joelhalpern.com Thu Apr 2 07:33:40 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 C9BB828C204 for ; Thu, 2 Apr 2009 07:33:40 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.473 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.473 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.126, 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 iGOxr4tjtpEt for ; Thu, 2 Apr 2009 07:33:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.mail.tigertech.net (hermes.mail.tigertech.net [64.62.209.72]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id ECA6D28C200 for ; Thu, 2 Apr 2009 07:33:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hermes.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id A7B644303E9; Thu, 2 Apr 2009 07:34:41 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at hermes.tigertech.net Received: from [10.10.10.100] (pool-71-161-52-88.clppva.btas.verizon.net [71.161.52.88]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by hermes.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8D6BF4303E8; Thu, 2 Apr 2009 07:34:40 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <49D4CCFD.70103@joelhalpern.com> Date: Thu, 02 Apr 2009 10:34:37 -0400 From: "Joel M. Halpern" User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.21 (Windows/20090302) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Leslie Daigle References: <802A89216BB2497B846B0364BD33C01F@china.huawei.com> <49D3CD3F.6080301@thinkingcat.com> <59C01736E259B7E1F5C37570@eList-eXpress-LLC.local> <6c9fcc2a0904020708j48b2e875uaa785f7451f94ff9@mail.gmail.com> <49D4CABA.4020707@thinkingcat.com> In-Reply-To: <49D4CABA.4020707@thinkingcat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Barry Leiba , NomComDiscussion , James M Galvin Subject: Re: [ietf-nomcom] "Lobbying" 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, 02 Apr 2009 14:33:40 -0000 I would strongly prefer not to see the questionnaire responses published. (The questions being asked by the nomcom are already public, so that nominees can answer them.) Those questions often prompt well thought out, nuanced, and sometimes quite critical comments. If they were public, I would expect to get less useful information. Conversely, I do not see any benefit in making the questionnaires public. Remember, the goal of making the list public is so that people have the information to provide their own comments. The goal is NOT to provoke a public exchange of views on any given area, body, or individual. Evaluating the input is the nomcoms job. I can not object to simple statements of "I have volunteered / been nominated for job X." After all, my view is that the nomcom should be able to (and should choose to / be required to) make that information public. But anything more than that on any IETF list is counter-productive. Yes, there are ways that folks can get at some of that anyway. For example, they can post on an area list about changes they think the area needs. Such a post is allowed (ought to be encouraged) even with no connection with nomination, so I can not see outlawing it. And yes, that might prompt other people to send feedback (positive or negative) about the person to the nomcom. But the list discussion should be about the idea, not the person. [Frankly, folks do that anyway. I think the SIP folks would have had to be oblivious not to think the nomcom was reading the SIP reorg discussions, and observing the debate in December.) Yours, Joel Leslie Daigle wrote: > > So, a thought that I refrained from expressing in the previous mail: the > NomCom could define that, in the same way they define the questionnaire > every year. > > If any statements of interest are to be supported, perhaps a lot of > angst would be removed if the overall process was: > > . NomCom defines candidate questionnaire > . NomCom publishes questionnaires submitted > > Thus -- willing candidates are describing themselves to the NomCom and > to the community in one go. And it gives the community something to > comment on to the NomCom. > > Or else -- no statements of interest should be allowed and *all* > comments go only to the NomCom. > > Leslie. > > > Barry Leiba wrote: >>>> 2/ Expressions of interest should/should not/may/may not/ be posted >>>> to ietf-discuss >>> I think "may" and I would include expressions non-interest. >>> >>>> 3/ Comments on a candidate's appropriateness for a role should be >>>> send only to the NomCom. >>> Absolutely! >> >> Allowing "expressions of interest" brings up questions of where the >> line is drawn. From a simple "I'd like to be the Banana Area >> Director" to a full campaign for the position ("If I were the Banana >> Area Director, I would make sure we worked on pesticide standards, >> because the area hasn't spent enough effort on those issues and..."), >> there's a lot of ground. How far can one go before one crosses the >> line? >> >> And consider that some will think that allowing statements should mean >> allowing rebuttals. That will quickly get us into airing comments on >> the candidate. >> >> Barry >> > From leslie@thinkingcat.com Thu Apr 2 07:37:12 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 62FE828C20D for ; Thu, 2 Apr 2009 07:37:12 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.508 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.508 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.091, 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 oGQdwsecTrcs for ; Thu, 2 Apr 2009 07:37:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: from zeke.ecotroph.net (zeke.ecotroph.net [70.164.19.155]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5D19128C20B for ; Thu, 2 Apr 2009 07:37:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: from isocpwtravel01.isoc.local ([::ffff:209.183.196.229]) (AUTH: PLAIN leslie, SSL: TLSv1/SSLv3,256bits,AES256-SHA) by zeke.ecotroph.net with esmtp; Thu, 02 Apr 2009 10:38:11 -0400 id 015AC526.49D4CDD3.00001593 Message-ID: <49D4CDCB.2090505@thinkingcat.com> Date: Thu, 02 Apr 2009 10:38:03 -0400 From: Leslie Daigle User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.21 (Macintosh/20090302) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Joel M. Halpern" References: <802A89216BB2497B846B0364BD33C01F@china.huawei.com> <49D3CD3F.6080301@thinkingcat.com> <59C01736E259B7E1F5C37570@eList-eXpress-LLC.local> <6c9fcc2a0904020708j48b2e875uaa785f7451f94ff9@mail.gmail.com> <49D4CABA.4020707@thinkingcat.com> <49D4CCFD.70103@joelhalpern.com> In-Reply-To: <49D4CCFD.70103@joelhalpern.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Barry Leiba , NomComDiscussion , James M Galvin Subject: Re: [ietf-nomcom] "Lobbying" 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, 02 Apr 2009 14:37:12 -0000 So -- this works for me (no statements of interest beyond binary) -- and I'd love to see this captured in the text. Leslie. Joel M. Halpern wrote: > I would strongly prefer not to see the questionnaire responses > published. (The questions being asked by the nomcom are already public, > so that nominees can answer them.) > Those questions often prompt well thought out, nuanced, and sometimes > quite critical comments. If they were public, I would expect to get > less useful information. > > Conversely, I do not see any benefit in making the questionnaires > public. Remember, the goal of making the list public is so that people > have the information to provide their own comments. The goal is NOT to > provoke a public exchange of views on any given area, body, or > individual. Evaluating the input is the nomcoms job. > > I can not object to simple statements of "I have volunteered / been > nominated for job X." After all, my view is that the nomcom should be > able to (and should choose to / be required to) make that information > public. > > But anything more than that on any IETF list is counter-productive. > Yes, there are ways that folks can get at some of that anyway. For > example, they can post on an area list about changes they think the area > needs. Such a post is allowed (ought to be encouraged) even with no > connection with nomination, so I can not see outlawing it. And yes, > that might prompt other people to send feedback (positive or negative) > about the person to the nomcom. But the list discussion should be about > the idea, not the person. [Frankly, folks do that anyway. I think the > SIP folks would have had to be oblivious not to think the nomcom was > reading the SIP reorg discussions, and observing the debate in December.) > > Yours, > Joel > > Leslie Daigle wrote: >> >> So, a thought that I refrained from expressing in the previous mail: >> the NomCom could define that, in the same way they define the >> questionnaire every year. >> >> If any statements of interest are to be supported, perhaps a lot of >> angst would be removed if the overall process was: >> >> . NomCom defines candidate questionnaire >> . NomCom publishes questionnaires submitted >> >> Thus -- willing candidates are describing themselves to the NomCom and >> to the community in one go. And it gives the community something to >> comment on to the NomCom. >> >> Or else -- no statements of interest should be allowed and *all* >> comments go only to the NomCom. >> >> Leslie. >> >> >> Barry Leiba wrote: >>>>> 2/ Expressions of interest should/should not/may/may not/ be posted >>>>> to ietf-discuss >>>> I think "may" and I would include expressions non-interest. >>>> >>>>> 3/ Comments on a candidate's appropriateness for a role should be >>>>> send only to the NomCom. >>>> Absolutely! >>> >>> Allowing "expressions of interest" brings up questions of where the >>> line is drawn. From a simple "I'd like to be the Banana Area >>> Director" to a full campaign for the position ("If I were the Banana >>> Area Director, I would make sure we worked on pesticide standards, >>> because the area hasn't spent enough effort on those issues and..."), >>> there's a lot of ground. How far can one go before one crosses the >>> line? >>> >>> And consider that some will think that allowing statements should mean >>> allowing rebuttals. That will quickly get us into airing comments on >>> the candidate. >>> >>> Barry >>> >> > -- ------------------------------------------------------------------- "Reality: Yours to discover." -- ThinkingCat Leslie Daigle leslie@thinkingcat.com ------------------------------------------------------------------- From spencer@wonderhamster.org Thu Apr 2 07:37:39 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 2A21628C204 for ; Thu, 2 Apr 2009 07:37:39 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.279 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.279 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.320, 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 QFHWVa+2XfFR for ; Thu, 2 Apr 2009 07:37:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mout.perfora.net (mout.perfora.net [74.208.4.195]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6257428C202 for ; Thu, 2 Apr 2009 07:37:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: from S73602b (w173.z064002096.dfw-tx.dsl.cnc.net [64.2.96.173]) by mrelay.perfora.net (node=mrus0) with ESMTP (Nemesis) id 0MKp8S-1LpO3t3KQF-000fwm; Thu, 02 Apr 2009 10:38:38 -0400 Message-ID: <1924986D0065417F9E556A9E3571988D@china.huawei.com> From: "Spencer Dawkins" To: "Leslie Daigle" , "Barry Leiba" References: <802A89216BB2497B846B0364BD33C01F@china.huawei.com> <49D3CD3F.6080301@thinkingcat.com> <59C01736E259B7E1F5C37570@eList-eXpress-LLC.local> <6c9fcc2a0904020708j48b2e875uaa785f7451f94ff9@mail.gmail.com> <49D4CABA.4020707@thinkingcat.com> Date: Thu, 2 Apr 2009 09:38:13 -0500 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/HcxchFu5QVrs2qqAqp0fy3+H3sLm/bnRhs9C qElxnlJ7hGXdxKk5rwaGiG4ShRL/Q3q82v3p+Bu+HXRrsQs8Td df0EGu6gizrOeJbhyKoYKWoj1oSigfZfOr9xThux5s= Cc: NomComDiscussion , James M Galvin Subject: Re: [ietf-nomcom] "Lobbying" 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, 02 Apr 2009 14:37:39 -0000 > So, a thought that I refrained from expressing in the previous mail: the > NomCom could define that, in the same way they define the questionnaire > every year. > > If any statements of interest are to be supported, perhaps a lot of angst > would be removed if the overall process was: > > . NomCom defines candidate questionnaire > . NomCom publishes questionnaires submitted Hi, Leslie, Did you mean questionnaire responses here, or just questionnaires? Barry seemed to assume responses in his reply to you. Thanks, Spencer From spencer@wonderhamster.org Thu Apr 2 07:38:41 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 685563A6D25 for ; Thu, 2 Apr 2009 07:38:41 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.29 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.29 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.703, BAYES_00=-2.599, FAKE_REPLY_C=2.012] 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 khMH7Qwvi-9C for ; Thu, 2 Apr 2009 07:38:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mout.perfora.net (mout.perfora.net [74.208.4.194]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A8E9A3A688A for ; Thu, 2 Apr 2009 07:38:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: from S73602b (w173.z064002096.dfw-tx.dsl.cnc.net [64.2.96.173]) by mrelay.perfora.net (node=mrus1) with ESMTP (Nemesis) id 0MKpCa-1LpO4t2Nwf-000d1d; Thu, 02 Apr 2009 10:39:41 -0400 Message-ID: <5C89E93B254749B4A1D8E5770A8672B4@china.huawei.com> From: "Spencer Dawkins" To: "Spencer Dawkins" , "Leslie Daigle" , "Barry Leiba" Date: Thu, 2 Apr 2009 09:39:13 -0500 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+//xyw0gp9QCgmqhVqtEMQ/L7qS7Nx9A3wMp5 3QRpG4brts1eTv0FQ+CHy4jOtNLBG6Mhb0diUqeNTTo3jkeR6R T/O3O/2/fGSY0kdujcZjOSkZFc0YDpf0zdexVMYb48= Cc: NomComDiscussion , James M Galvin Subject: Re: [ietf-nomcom] "Lobbying" 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, 02 Apr 2009 14:38:41 -0000 "... JOEL seemed to assume..." Going back to sleep now. Sorry. Spencer >> So, a thought that I refrained from expressing in the previous mail: the >> NomCom could define that, in the same way they define the questionnaire >> every year. >> >> If any statements of interest are to be supported, perhaps a lot of angst >> would be removed if the overall process was: >> >> . NomCom defines candidate questionnaire >> . NomCom publishes questionnaires submitted > > Hi, Leslie, > > Did you mean questionnaire responses here, or just questionnaires? Barry > seemed to assume responses in his reply to you. > > Thanks, > > Spencer From leslie@thinkingcat.com Thu Apr 2 07:49:34 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 DB7C83A689A for ; Thu, 2 Apr 2009 07:49:34 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.514 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.514 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.085, 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 8d+CqkgR18U4 for ; Thu, 2 Apr 2009 07:49:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: from zeke.ecotroph.net (zeke.ecotroph.net [70.164.19.155]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6CB2728C0F8 for ; Thu, 2 Apr 2009 07:48:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: from isocpwtravel01.isoc.local ([::ffff:209.183.196.229]) (AUTH: PLAIN leslie, SSL: TLSv1/SSLv3,256bits,AES256-SHA) by zeke.ecotroph.net with esmtp; Thu, 02 Apr 2009 10:49:33 -0400 id 015AC526.49D4D07D.00001876 Message-ID: <49D4D075.8020601@thinkingcat.com> Date: Thu, 02 Apr 2009 10:49:25 -0400 From: Leslie Daigle User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.21 (Macintosh/20090302) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Spencer Dawkins References: <802A89216BB2497B846B0364BD33C01F@china.huawei.com> <49D3CD3F.6080301@thinkingcat.com> <59C01736E259B7E1F5C37570@eList-eXpress-LLC.local> <6c9fcc2a0904020708j48b2e875uaa785f7451f94ff9@mail.gmail.com> <49D4CABA.4020707@thinkingcat.com> <1924986D0065417F9E556A9E3571988D@china.huawei.com> In-Reply-To: <1924986D0065417F9E556A9E3571988D@china.huawei.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Barry Leiba , NomComDiscussion , James M Galvin Subject: Re: [ietf-nomcom] "Lobbying" 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, 02 Apr 2009 14:49:34 -0000 Hi, Yes, I meant completed questionnaires. Personally -- I lean towards Joel's reasoning. Barry, I think, leans otherwise. Either way -- this is probably the crux of the issue of what we (collectively) think about self-representation (and lobbying). Leslie. Spencer Dawkins wrote: >> So, a thought that I refrained from expressing in the previous mail: >> the NomCom could define that, in the same way they define the >> questionnaire every year. >> >> If any statements of interest are to be supported, perhaps a lot of >> angst would be removed if the overall process was: >> >> . NomCom defines candidate questionnaire >> . NomCom publishes questionnaires submitted > > Hi, Leslie, > > Did you mean questionnaire responses here, or just questionnaires? Barry > seemed to assume responses in his reply to you. > > Thanks, > > Spencer > -- ------------------------------------------------------------------- "Reality: Yours to discover." -- ThinkingCat Leslie Daigle leslie@thinkingcat.com ------------------------------------------------------------------- From barryleiba@gmail.com Thu Apr 2 07:37:06 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 4271F28C202 for ; Thu, 2 Apr 2009 07:37:06 -0700 (PDT) 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 sgt0oSLFfInY for ; Thu, 2 Apr 2009 07:37:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: from yx-out-2324.google.com (yx-out-2324.google.com [74.125.44.29]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 73F8E28C20B for ; Thu, 2 Apr 2009 07:37:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: by yx-out-2324.google.com with SMTP id 8so725744yxm.49 for ; Thu, 02 Apr 2009 07:38:06 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:sender:x-rim-org-msg-ref-id :message-id:reply-to:x-priority:sensitivity:importance:to:cc:subject :from:date:content-type:mime-version; bh=99LwamvnQPxc9UhtqFY5WdARZzXxBlJSLq//czu0ygM=; b=fexjzA1Zy0wGUy7M90DaxQPqHLnMUKugIzEagle+kI0vmqDYE3PcpelTsB48nTUQLb ruZWKL0kRPu2lLlcY/K7gsK0El2uUtAcAXqzPZGlfiUJGmVncqZaUrk9FJmfjRH9w+Ac KQ/UG5XkTJ1Bp6kBo31kuqByk8VEVHpKLYoys= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=sender:x-rim-org-msg-ref-id:message-id:reply-to:x-priority :sensitivity:importance:to:cc:subject:from:date:content-type :mime-version; b=AsJiM9E5ZJjhWH7LyU7Raac3z+auU/e2/l3EYOEDShLZnowcAc5ExuRg7vKTvunhq2 csRf5a/65jRXfdL7vRQLqjdv7GFxhnx+nAUf6eRPjfwfAGpF018wUIviowNwpHcS8vKJ 7mHa+MDNeltuVu1o1rsrDHZAIg3pmCBm9XoIw= Received: by 10.90.67.6 with SMTP id p6mr53880aga.25.1238683086660; Thu, 02 Apr 2009 07:38:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: from bda1042.bisx.prod.on.blackberry (g1042.bda.bis.na.blackberry.com [67.223.87.56]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id 11sm1658253aga.70.2009.04.02.07.38.05 (version=SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Thu, 02 Apr 2009 07:38:05 -0700 (PDT) Sender: Barry Leiba X-rim-org-msg-ref-id: 99266231 Message-ID: <99266231-1238683084-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-1495345164-@bxe1180.bisx.prod.on.blackberry> X-Priority: Normal Sensitivity: Normal Importance: Normal To: "Leslie Daigle" , "Barry Leiba" From: "Barry Leiba" Date: Thu, 2 Apr 2009 14:38:02 +0000 Content-Type: text/plain MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailman-Approved-At: Thu, 02 Apr 2009 08:10:39 -0700 Cc: NomComDiscussion , James M Galvin Subject: Re: [ietf-nomcom] "Lobbying" X-BeenThere: ietf-nomcom@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list Reply-To: barryleiba@computer.org 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, 02 Apr 2009 14:37:06 -0000 > . NomCom defines candidate questionnaire > . NomCom publishes questionnaires submitted > Thus -- willing candidates are describing themselves to the NomCom and > to the community in one go. And it gives the community something to > comment on to the NomCom. I like that idea. I've always thout it odd that the questionnaires were secret. There needs to be a confidential portion, of course, but for the bulk of it.... Barry From spencer@wonderhamster.org Thu Apr 2 08:34:31 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 E05C73A6BDB for ; Thu, 2 Apr 2009 08:34:31 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.26 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.26 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.339, 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 YtavR-7G0yTw for ; Thu, 2 Apr 2009 08:34:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mout.perfora.net (mout.perfora.net [74.208.4.195]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 142293A6B34 for ; Thu, 2 Apr 2009 08:34:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: from S73602b (w173.z064002096.dfw-tx.dsl.cnc.net [64.2.96.173]) by mrelay.perfora.net (node=mrus1) with ESMTP (Nemesis) id 0MKpCa-1LpOwu49X3-000cp8; Thu, 02 Apr 2009 11:35:31 -0400 Message-ID: <8763E52A67CC4B91BC08408AD5F4545B@china.huawei.com> From: "Spencer Dawkins" To: "Joel M. Halpern" , "Leslie Daigle" References: <802A89216BB2497B846B0364BD33C01F@china.huawei.com> <49D3CD3F.6080301@thinkingcat.com> <59C01736E259B7E1F5C37570@eList-eXpress-LLC.local> <6c9fcc2a0904020708j48b2e875uaa785f7451f94ff9@mail.gmail.com><49D4CABA.4020707@thinkingcat.com> <49D4CCFD.70103@joelhalpern.com> Date: Thu, 2 Apr 2009 10:35:02 -0500 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: V01U2FsdGVkX18XN/QvuX7QhNJvFCkxfRIDhHR+HGm2nygvxB0 TeME9HSf7oF/V+h0ZBJ4wX/txMQvszan68k2R24k3pQkASJi+S BTnDsv35MBmFJnaqczTCx7GtKpqUSn2v4GhKZEEFjI= Cc: Barry Leiba , NomComDiscussion , James M Galvin Subject: Re: [ietf-nomcom] "Lobbying" 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, 02 Apr 2009 15:34:32 -0000 Speaking only for myself, I'm coming down where Joel is in the following text. > Conversely, I do not see any benefit in making the questionnaires public. > Remember, the goal of making the list public is so that people have the > information to provide their own comments. The goal is NOT to provoke a > public exchange of views on any given area, body, or individual. > Evaluating the input is the nomcoms job. > > I can not object to simple statements of "I have volunteered / been > nominated for job X." After all, my view is that the nomcom should be > able to (and should choose to / be required to) make that information > public. > > But anything more than that on any IETF list is counter-productive. > Yes, there are ways that folks can get at some of that anyway. For > example, they can post on an area list about changes they think the area > needs. Such a post is allowed (ought to be encouraged) even with no > connection with nomination, so I can not see outlawing it. And yes, that > might prompt other people to send feedback (positive or negative) about > the person to the nomcom. But the list discussion should be about the > idea, not the person. [Frankly, folks do that anyway. I think the SIP > folks would have had to be oblivious not to think the nomcom was reading > the SIP reorg discussions, and observing the debate in December.) If the goal is to information on candidate views for NomCom, that's what questionnaire responses are for. If the goal is to generate feedback on nominees for NomCom, that's what the public nominee list is for. I think we should trust NomCom to sort through the questionnaire responses and feedback on nominees and do the right thing. Thanks, Spencer From barryleiba.mailing.lists@gmail.com Thu Apr 2 09:44:43 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 ED3BD3A67D2 for ; Thu, 2 Apr 2009 09:44:43 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.214 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.214 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.237, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622] 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 pzVv2GMwXysK for ; Thu, 2 Apr 2009 09:44:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-bw0-f169.google.com (mail-bw0-f169.google.com [209.85.218.169]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B12CC3A6917 for ; Thu, 2 Apr 2009 09:44:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: by bwz17 with SMTP id 17so603659bwz.37 for ; Thu, 02 Apr 2009 09:45:43 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:sender:received:in-reply-to :references:date:x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:cc :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=Eu52kK2Mc7Az/kiPUy1hnymKPaOxB3av33Em2r4F91w=; b=BBMXSDWnwO1bvDP5WzGSkZtSVSWvsYIxzyxTmsvC34Uaz+sMRf1dnI4LQicsjmYS8/ Qx9QAH0TmhVSMFyKZh51DLRRAeRJRlfqNrsOX7Mmwz+r7yexXyYaqjEYpqR2xSixWa1Z BVhui4+VJIKxZZJlKoKYwOzRaE3MOiPvSo/aU= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; b=HbU+CqnatL3Yv5EYwjtOcvTJFh3ay8583YMXBZ6WLog6g1vtNm0VNAPOlp+i3Y+m2/ 4jddtPd6ie1M2yd5yAp2aztUFxs5dwgeVN92D6vUE/6yaFZNQrVY2C5dGIT8Kk9th0xH SiCh+RZRhS6B4195sy3bzDJLO6TCb46Gs4v4g= MIME-Version: 1.0 Sender: barryleiba.mailing.lists@gmail.com Received: by 10.223.127.8 with SMTP id e8mr163810fas.95.1238690743230; Thu, 02 Apr 2009 09:45:43 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <49D4CCFD.70103@joelhalpern.com> References: <802A89216BB2497B846B0364BD33C01F@china.huawei.com> <49D3CD3F.6080301@thinkingcat.com> <59C01736E259B7E1F5C37570@eList-eXpress-LLC.local> <6c9fcc2a0904020708j48b2e875uaa785f7451f94ff9@mail.gmail.com> <49D4CABA.4020707@thinkingcat.com> <49D4CCFD.70103@joelhalpern.com> Date: Thu, 2 Apr 2009 12:45:43 -0400 X-Google-Sender-Auth: 0fc8129c0d76bb5b Message-ID: <6c9fcc2a0904020945s25e240a9if50110b2d72c6cf3@mail.gmail.com> From: Barry Leiba To: "Joel M. Halpern" Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Cc: NomComDiscussion , James M Galvin Subject: Re: [ietf-nomcom] "Lobbying" 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, 02 Apr 2009 16:44:44 -0000 To be clear, now that I'm back at my computer (it's hard to be as clear from the BlackBerry): I think there's useful information contained in the questionnaire responses for the community and for those giving feedback. The questionnaires for AD, for instance, consistently ask what the candidate's vision for the area is, what the candidate thinks about liaison relationship, and the like. When I'm giving feedback, in addition to commenting on the person and her work in general, it would be useful to be able to comment on the candidate's position statement. Of course, as I said in my briefer note, there needs to be part of the response that's kept to the NomCom, at the choice of the candidate. Example: Q: What is your vision for the Banana Area? (This response will be public.= ) A: The Banana Area needs to focus more on organic cultivation, and I will lead the area in that direction by [...etc...]. Q: Is there anything related to the previous question that you want to say privately to the NomCom and the confirmation body? A: The previous AD has been a headstrong proponent of pesticides, and his persistence with his company's agenda in that regard has [...etc...]. Similarly for the IAB: the NomCom report showed that there's confusion and/or uncertainty about the IAB's role (what it should do) and about what it actually does. Public statements about what IAB candidates intend to do if appointed would be useful fodder for community feedback on those candidates. > Conversely, I do not see any benefit in making the questionnaires public. > =A0Remember, the goal of making the list public is so that people have th= e > information to provide their own comments. =A0The goal is NOT to provoke = a > public exchange of views on any given area, body, or individual. =A0Evalu= ating > the input is the nomcoms job. I'm not suggesting that there be open discussion of this on the mailing lists. If the questionnaires were defined this way, and the public portions were made public on the NomCom web site, then that might (1) promote more community feedback and (2) make more of that feedback more valuable to the NomCom. I would specifically NOT want to see ANY discussion of candidates or candidacy on the mailing lists. Barry From agmalis@gmail.com Thu Apr 2 11:04:43 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 09D683A6E28 for ; Thu, 2 Apr 2009 11:04:43 -0700 (PDT) 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 bXHRk9LBJCeF for ; Thu, 2 Apr 2009 11:04:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: from yw-out-2324.google.com (yw-out-2324.google.com [74.125.46.30]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E3CAA3A6A29 for ; Thu, 2 Apr 2009 11:04:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: by yw-out-2324.google.com with SMTP id 5so836282ywh.49 for ; Thu, 02 Apr 2009 11:05:43 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :received:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=rjnqKG5rM7SJiClntV0O48k+vbOawQCazJbRlgNMKpk=; b=uRkMNs2r8DZA4SeBz4+q5lvaLOrS1bkXu+MZMZzNA5DctbNlUM3VN1GvLqQoeobX05 GcjWIOiVo+Cid2zizy7JCJjDyk+VAq8UVIQZrlPRAhkS9uvQGFq2x4Av4ZF9tjgt4RQX oXxoqhf53t178PeaBZ3CE0VtCjACj5XQiRloo= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=QLJG63J/nPyy1fVUFaeOqRH3A32X1pRP7+2Dz3FmEJBbbXA/WVeMY9MH/TUWUqVKu3 pIUTXOn+0XrVD1nBQ345Z6kKKQhH+zXwvy0jeoYE/RhqemVjBk4D27Jg1+2HxwUb+wrT pKPcNB+2BZ0tlIcFF/uCnj8WjOKn4ozhv2F2A= MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <6c9fcc2a0904020945s25e240a9if50110b2d72c6cf3@mail.gmail.com> References: <802A89216BB2497B846B0364BD33C01F@china.huawei.com> <49D3CD3F.6080301@thinkingcat.com> <59C01736E259B7E1F5C37570@eList-eXpress-LLC.local> <6c9fcc2a0904020708j48b2e875uaa785f7451f94ff9@mail.gmail.com> <49D4CABA.4020707@thinkingcat.com> <49D4CCFD.70103@joelhalpern.com> <6c9fcc2a0904020945s25e240a9if50110b2d72c6cf3@mail.gmail.com> Date: Thu, 2 Apr 2009 14:05:19 -0400 Received: by 10.100.13.6 with SMTP id 6mr500100anm.148.1238695543082; Thu, 02 Apr 2009 11:05:43 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <8c99930d0904021105x34b648dbta8615ed663cca0c8@mail.gmail.com> From: "Andrew G. Malis" To: Barry Leiba Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Cc: NomComDiscussion , James M Galvin Subject: Re: [ietf-nomcom] "Lobbying" 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, 02 Apr 2009 18:04:43 -0000 Barry, I'm sorry, but I'm in the other camp with Joel and Spencer. I think candidates will feel more free to speak plainly on any particular question if they know that the answer will be private to either Noncom, or Nomcom and the confirming body (with it being clear on each question as to who will be reading each answer). There's no way to predict the way someone will free-associate when answering any particular question, and making them have to feel like they need to guard their answers because they will be made public makes for a less candid answer. Making answers public might also color what people will say to Nomcom. If I were on Nomcom, I would prefer hearing comments about candidates based upon their prior work, not based upon what they said in their nomination questionaire. I'm also in agreement with Joel and others on a public binary expression of interest being OK, but nothing beyond that. And I also feel that there's no problem with making the list of nominated individuals public for the purpose of soliciting comments. After all, people can be nominated by anyone for any reason - just being nominated doesn't mean that you self-nominated or otherwise solicited the nomination. I am very much against the prior practice of adding ringers. Cheers, Andy On Thu, Apr 2, 2009 at 12:45 PM, Barry Leiba wrot= e: > To be clear, now that I'm back at my computer (it's hard to be as > clear from the BlackBerry): =A0I think there's useful information > contained in the questionnaire responses for the community and for > those giving feedback. =A0The questionnaires for AD, for instance, > consistently ask what the candidate's vision for the area is, what the > candidate thinks about liaison relationship, and the like. > > When I'm giving feedback, in addition to commenting on the person and > her work in general, it would be useful to be able to comment on the > candidate's position statement. > > Of course, as I said in my briefer note, there needs to be part of the > response that's kept to the NomCom, at the choice of the candidate. > Example: > > Q: What is your vision for the Banana Area? =A0(This response will be pub= lic.) > > A: The Banana Area needs to focus more on organic cultivation, and I > will lead the area in that direction by [...etc...]. > > Q: Is there anything related to the previous question that you want to > say privately to the NomCom and the confirmation body? > > A: The previous AD has been a headstrong proponent of pesticides, and > his persistence with his company's agenda in that regard has > [...etc...]. > > Similarly for the IAB: the NomCom report showed that there's confusion > and/or uncertainty about the IAB's role (what it should do) and about > what it actually does. =A0Public statements about what IAB candidates > intend to do if appointed would be useful fodder for community > feedback on those candidates. > >> Conversely, I do not see any benefit in making the questionnaires public= . >> =A0Remember, the goal of making the list public is so that people have t= he >> information to provide their own comments. =A0The goal is NOT to provoke= a >> public exchange of views on any given area, body, or individual. =A0Eval= uating >> the input is the nomcoms job. > > I'm not suggesting that there be open discussion of this on the > mailing lists. =A0If the questionnaires were defined this way, and the > public portions were made public on the NomCom web site, then that > might (1) promote more community feedback and (2) make more of that > feedback more valuable to the NomCom. > > I would specifically NOT want to see ANY discussion of candidates or > candidacy on the mailing lists. > > Barry > _______________________________________________ > ietf-nomcom mailing list > ietf-nomcom@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-nomcom > From barryleiba@gmail.com Thu Apr 2 11:34:00 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 3334B3A6DA3 for ; Thu, 2 Apr 2009 11:34:00 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.949 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.949 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.028, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622] 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 GZzY5vzQp2ci for ; Thu, 2 Apr 2009 11:33:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: from yx-out-2324.google.com (yx-out-2324.google.com [74.125.44.30]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2E0383A6911 for ; Thu, 2 Apr 2009 11:33:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: by yx-out-2324.google.com with SMTP id 8so851441yxm.49 for ; Thu, 02 Apr 2009 11:35:00 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:sender:received:in-reply-to :references:date:x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:cc :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=R1WRnjMN/fKE8oXBdgSS2hyhdjXtJGhNn1KRSgdrRTI=; b=P2Wa7v1HbY8VO4UyPMDWO6hjsViuFo7QhXBKMX81XnWfqVtj6rtaciwDlrLwD2l8SP xx+CRuw2vcD33KzEtIMyDPrpQUAisqTj4TTPKtCvPfuOUR+zJcTV8rW0OrFZZKrN9DdC N+gHr+nKLIvyi75hiBXidoP13nnDUlsyz7/fs= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; b=GdUDs/oBIx9rd/2fkDOAl7MIi/PjLYiXPfevxkKAWsFr3r/1OFBr8wEo2Dr2chk2FE m4cWmml2lpc7al1xXkRdRsyDMNNxvpO+Rsa7JPlzpDMM5aBQUr7BXX3gO7ar+tqjBiFE HRkaGAPrLtxExisVAucDLDx9jDKqTLKxvE9z8= MIME-Version: 1.0 Sender: barryleiba@gmail.com Received: by 10.100.137.12 with SMTP id k12mr576144and.124.1238697299509; Thu, 02 Apr 2009 11:34:59 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <8c99930d0904021105x34b648dbta8615ed663cca0c8@mail.gmail.com> References: <802A89216BB2497B846B0364BD33C01F@china.huawei.com> <49D3CD3F.6080301@thinkingcat.com> <59C01736E259B7E1F5C37570@eList-eXpress-LLC.local> <6c9fcc2a0904020708j48b2e875uaa785f7451f94ff9@mail.gmail.com> <49D4CABA.4020707@thinkingcat.com> <49D4CCFD.70103@joelhalpern.com> <6c9fcc2a0904020945s25e240a9if50110b2d72c6cf3@mail.gmail.com> <8c99930d0904021105x34b648dbta8615ed663cca0c8@mail.gmail.com> Date: Thu, 2 Apr 2009 14:34:59 -0400 X-Google-Sender-Auth: 99b230edd60428a1 Message-ID: <9abf48a60904021134n27940665u2f56c2f52477990e@mail.gmail.com> From: Barry Leiba To: "Andrew G. Malis" Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: NomComDiscussion , James M Galvin Subject: Re: [ietf-nomcom] "Lobbying" 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, 02 Apr 2009 18:34:00 -0000 > I'm sorry, but I'm in the other camp with Joel and Spencer. Oh, no apology needed, to be sure! Anyway, I think it's worth another round.... > candidates will feel more free to speak plainly on any particular > question if they know that the answer will be private That's where they get the "private" section. But I think potential leaders should make public statements about what they intend to do. In our environment, I'd hate to see "campaigning", so having the public statement be a public *portion* of the questionnaire makes the most sense. > Making answers public might also color what people will say to Nomcom. > If I were on Nomcom, I would prefer hearing comments about candidates > based upon their prior work, not based upon what they said in their > nomination questionaire. I think we need both. In the example in my last message, suppose you didn't know me very well because we worked in different working groups within the Banana Area... but you had a definite response to my statement that I'd steer the area toward organics. You might strongly agree or disagree, and that would be important stuff for the NomCom to know -- is the direction I want to take the area a direction that people working in the area agree with or not. My statements might also prompt someone who knows me and would comment anyway to mention other things in her comment that she might not have thought of. "Oh, yes," she might say, "that's something I want to give feedback on (positive or negative) to the NomCom." Someone might actually want to refute something I said, having specific counterexamples. It's obviously a very different situation, but... Suppose we were nominating a U.S. president by this sort of mechanism, and you were told that the candidates were Barack Obama, John McCain, Ralph Nader, Leslie Daigle, and Joel Halpern. The first three have been in politics for a long time, so you know what they stand for and you've heard what they aim to do. You know Leslie and Joel from the IETF, and you really do think they're capable of pretty much anything. You think they *can* do the job. But do you agree with where they want to take the country? So, the League of Women Voters sends them each a questionnaire: 1. What would you do about the economy? 2. Where do you stand on stem-cell research? 3. What should we do about the immigration situation? ...etc... Don't you think their responses to that, and feedback on it from you and the rest of the community, would be important for the NomCom's decision about who to appoint president? (Or IETF Chair. Or whatever.) Fortunately, the decisions here have far less impact. Still...... Barry From jmh@joelhalpern.com Thu Apr 2 11:44:11 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 50C213A6A29 for ; Thu, 2 Apr 2009 11:44:11 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.475 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.475 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.124, 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 0ZAUFACgLrwZ for ; Thu, 2 Apr 2009 11:44:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.mail.tigertech.net (hermes.mail.tigertech.net [64.62.209.72]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6A4843A63D3 for ; Thu, 2 Apr 2009 11:44:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hermes.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4C00E43045A; Thu, 2 Apr 2009 11:45:12 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at hermes.tigertech.net Received: from [10.10.10.100] (pool-71-161-52-88.clppva.btas.verizon.net [71.161.52.88]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by hermes.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 44B7243045D; Thu, 2 Apr 2009 11:45:11 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <49D507B3.4030403@joelhalpern.com> Date: Thu, 02 Apr 2009 14:45:07 -0400 From: "Joel M. Halpern" User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.21 (Windows/20090302) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Barry Leiba References: <802A89216BB2497B846B0364BD33C01F@china.huawei.com> <49D3CD3F.6080301@thinkingcat.com> <59C01736E259B7E1F5C37570@eList-eXpress-LLC.local> <6c9fcc2a0904020708j48b2e875uaa785f7451f94ff9@mail.gmail.com> <49D4CABA.4020707@thinkingcat.com> <49D4CCFD.70103@joelhalpern.com> <6c9fcc2a0904020945s25e240a9if50110b2d72c6cf3@mail.gmail.com> <8c99930d0904021105x34b648dbta8615ed663cca0c8@mail.gmail.com> <9abf48a60904021134n27940665u2f56c2f52477990e@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <9abf48a60904021134n27940665u2f56c2f52477990e@mail.gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: NomComDiscussion Subject: Re: [ietf-nomcom] "Lobbying" 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, 02 Apr 2009 18:44:11 -0000 I think expecting folks to make "public statements" ends up selecting for the wrong things. I don't think we want the nomcom picking folks based on how well they compose a public description. The point of the area vision questions on the questionaire is, I think, about understanding how the nominee looks at things, not about the nominee persuading folks of his vision. It is not even about holding the nominee to his word later about what he says he will do. It serves to frame an evaluation and understanding. Making the answers public does not help that. If the community wants a public discussion of any given area, or all the aspects of our community, they have tools to make that happen. (To pick on the SIP folks again, they clearly wanted such a discussion, and they had one.) I seem to be unable to see the value you see in making those public. And I see significant drawbacks. In spite of your comments about not wanting discussions of people, I think it will almost inevitably lead to quasi-public (or fully public) discussions of people. Yours, Joel Barry Leiba wrote: >> I'm sorry, but I'm in the other camp with Joel and Spencer. > > Oh, no apology needed, to be sure! > Anyway, I think it's worth another round.... > >> candidates will feel more free to speak plainly on any particular >> question if they know that the answer will be private > > That's where they get the "private" section. > > But I think potential leaders should make public statements about what > they intend to do. In our environment, I'd hate to see "campaigning", > so having the public statement be a public *portion* of the > questionnaire makes the most sense. > >> Making answers public might also color what people will say to Nomcom. >> If I were on Nomcom, I would prefer hearing comments about candidates >> based upon their prior work, not based upon what they said in their >> nomination questionaire. > > I think we need both. > In the example in my last message, suppose you didn't know me very > well because we worked in different working groups within the Banana > Area... but you had a definite response to my statement that I'd steer > the area toward organics. You might strongly agree or disagree, and > that would be important stuff for the NomCom to know -- is the > direction I want to take the area a direction that people working in > the area agree with or not. > > My statements might also prompt someone who knows me and would comment > anyway to mention other things in her comment that she might not have > thought of. "Oh, yes," she might say, "that's something I want to > give feedback on (positive or negative) to the NomCom." Someone might > actually want to refute something I said, having specific > counterexamples. > > > It's obviously a very different situation, but... > Suppose we were nominating a U.S. president by this sort of mechanism, > and you were told that the candidates were Barack Obama, John McCain, > Ralph Nader, Leslie Daigle, and Joel Halpern. The first three have > been in politics for a long time, so you know what they stand for and > you've heard what they aim to do. You know Leslie and Joel from the > IETF, and you really do think they're capable of pretty much anything. > You think they *can* do the job. But do you agree with where they > want to take the country? > > So, the League of Women Voters sends them each a questionnaire: > 1. What would you do about the economy? > 2. Where do you stand on stem-cell research? > 3. What should we do about the immigration situation? > ...etc... > > Don't you think their responses to that, and feedback on it from you > and the rest of the community, would be important for the NomCom's > decision about who to appoint president? (Or IETF Chair. Or > whatever.) > > Fortunately, the decisions here have far less impact. Still...... > > Barry > From huitema@windows.microsoft.com Thu Apr 2 11:47:38 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 8730A3A6D2D for ; Thu, 2 Apr 2009 11:47:38 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -110.389 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-110.389 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.210, 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 cUoX-QlXOgp4 for ; Thu, 2 Apr 2009 11:47:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtp.microsoft.com (maila.microsoft.com [131.107.115.212]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 52D173A6C74 for ; Thu, 2 Apr 2009 11:47:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: from TK5-EXHUB-C101.redmond.corp.microsoft.com (157.54.18.48) by TK5-EXGWY-E801.partners.extranet.microsoft.com (10.251.56.50) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.2.99.4; Thu, 2 Apr 2009 11:48:38 -0700 Received: from TK5-EXMLT-W605V.wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.microsoft.com (157.54.18.79) by TK5-EXHUB-C101.redmond.corp.microsoft.com (157.54.18.48) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 8.2.99.4; Thu, 2 Apr 2009 11:44:12 -0700 Received: from NA-EXMSG-W601.wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.microsoft.com ([fe80::8de9:51a2:cd62:f122]) by TK5-EXMLT-W605V.wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.microsoft.com ([157.54.18.79]) with mapi; Thu, 2 Apr 2009 11:44:09 -0700 From: Christian Huitema To: Barry Leiba , "Andrew G. Malis" Date: Thu, 2 Apr 2009 11:44:09 -0700 Thread-Topic: [ietf-nomcom] "Lobbying" Thread-Index: Acmzwcs50FvGjfqjRtGAGBG3SgcCSwAAC35w Message-ID: <8EFB68EAE061884A8517F2A755E8B60A1CBEEBD1F5@NA-EXMSG-W601.wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.microsoft.com> References: <802A89216BB2497B846B0364BD33C01F@china.huawei.com> <49D3CD3F.6080301@thinkingcat.com> <59C01736E259B7E1F5C37570@eList-eXpress-LLC.local> <6c9fcc2a0904020708j48b2e875uaa785f7451f94ff9@mail.gmail.com> <49D4CABA.4020707@thinkingcat.com> <49D4CCFD.70103@joelhalpern.com> <6c9fcc2a0904020945s25e240a9if50110b2d72c6cf3@mail.gmail.com> <8c99930d0904021105x34b648dbta8615ed663cca0c8@mail.gmail.com> <9abf48a60904021134n27940665u2f56c2f52477990e@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <9abf48a60904021134n27940665u2f56c2f52477990e@mail.gmail.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 , James M Galvin Subject: Re: [ietf-nomcom] "Lobbying" 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, 02 Apr 2009 18:47:38 -0000 > It's obviously a very different situation, but... > Suppose we were nominating a U.S. president by this sort of mechanism, > and you were told that the candidates were Barack Obama, John McCain, > Ralph Nader, Leslie Daigle, and Joel Halpern. The first three have > been in politics for a long time, so you know what they stand for and > you've heard what they aim to do. You know Leslie and Joel from the > IETF, and you really do think they're capable of pretty much anything. > You think they *can* do the job. But do you agree with where they > want to take the country? The question is precisely whether this is "a very different situation". We = could very well have decided back in 1992 that open elections and campaigni= ng were the best way to get rid of the "old boys club". There was a reason = we did not. Open campaigning essentially transforms the leadership selection into a pol= itical process. Instead of judging people on their personal abilities, you = end up evaluating platforms. More importantly, you end up changing the IESG= from being a "steering group", similar to judges, to becoming a maker of t= echnology choices, similar to the executive power. We would rather leave th= is executive power to the working groups. -- Christian Huitema From brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com Thu Apr 2 15:51:14 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 C0AB728C120 for ; Thu, 2 Apr 2009 15:51:14 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.5 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.5 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.099, 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 pW6CRvCfRy2e for ; Thu, 2 Apr 2009 15:51:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: from rv-out-0506.google.com (rv-out-0506.google.com [209.85.198.229]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BA5B13A6A63 for ; Thu, 2 Apr 2009 15:51:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: by rv-out-0506.google.com with SMTP id k40so752435rvb.49 for ; Thu, 02 Apr 2009 15:52:12 -0700 (PDT) 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=nwvk9p01QXo3fY4VxiwZGdq0JQ07p4zvTeEC5q+MxD4=; b=OIdgCfLw30g8g90/p3yX3pUSW3uYfZ4oOJ8U1rvsTGfzFmL7U80rRUvowr1Ubsqgz1 mtHeLZu+Kr1vElCiO9fLK8jzzeclII84fsrdRZCx549/c0Amvtm2odVxDfFDMqFFTJmj 3IeiVDJAphJDYAUbVYfzuZf1ZQCPKYCn2NGwI= 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=Cghsiqqf2DEHrW+QgWMrstZeryKtrlftLRqxlKKnEq29gapBghYDvckH8uLcfg7eN2 4Kwa6tdEP51uYP3Hkt5uDtXHcNlaQOEP8LbhhFouPmaHnE8qcaTajrgkuFSBH3rfpHmR m7DbIPlhHsel37waKTvJF0bEQEZWLpSoEciWo= Received: by 10.114.197.10 with SMTP id u10mr232020waf.174.1238712732406; Thu, 02 Apr 2009 15:52:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ?130.216.38.124? (stf-brian.sfac.auckland.ac.nz [130.216.38.124]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id m25sm1566650waf.9.2009.04.02.15.52.10 (version=SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Thu, 02 Apr 2009 15:52:11 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <49D541B5.3040007@gmail.com> Date: Fri, 03 Apr 2009 11:52:37 +1300 From: Brian E Carpenter Organization: University of Auckland User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.6 (Windows/20070728) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Andrew G. Malis" References: <802A89216BB2497B846B0364BD33C01F@china.huawei.com> <49D3CD3F.6080301@thinkingcat.com> <59C01736E259B7E1F5C37570@eList-eXpress-LLC.local> <6c9fcc2a0904020708j48b2e875uaa785f7451f94ff9@mail.gmail.com> <49D4CABA.4020707@thinkingcat.com> <49D4CCFD.70103@joelhalpern.com> <6c9fcc2a0904020945s25e240a9if50110b2d72c6cf3@mail.gmail.com> <8c99930d0904021105x34b648dbta8615ed663cca0c8@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <8c99930d0904021105x34b648dbta8615ed663cca0c8@mail.gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: NomComDiscussion Subject: Re: [ietf-nomcom] "Lobbying" 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, 02 Apr 2009 22:51:14 -0000 +1 to everything that Andy says below. That seems like the right balance, and a big enough change from current practice that we can expect a real difference, without breaking everything. Brian On 2009-04-03 07:05, Andrew G. Malis wrote: > Barry, > > I'm sorry, but I'm in the other camp with Joel and Spencer. I think > candidates will feel more free to speak plainly on any particular > question if they know that the answer will be private to either > Noncom, or Nomcom and the confirming body (with it being clear on each > question as to who will be reading each answer). There's no way to > predict the way someone will free-associate when answering any > particular question, and making them have to feel like they need to > guard their answers because they will be made public makes for a less > candid answer. > > Making answers public might also color what people will say to Nomcom. > If I were on Nomcom, I would prefer hearing comments about candidates > based upon their prior work, not based upon what they said in their > nomination questionaire. > > I'm also in agreement with Joel and others on a public binary > expression of interest being OK, but nothing beyond that. > > And I also feel that there's no problem with making the list of > nominated individuals public for the purpose of soliciting comments. > After all, people can be nominated by anyone for any reason - just > being nominated doesn't mean that you self-nominated or otherwise > solicited the nomination. I am very much against the prior practice of > adding ringers. > > Cheers, > Andy > > On Thu, Apr 2, 2009 at 12:45 PM, Barry Leiba wrote: >> To be clear, now that I'm back at my computer (it's hard to be as >> clear from the BlackBerry): I think there's useful information >> contained in the questionnaire responses for the community and for >> those giving feedback. The questionnaires for AD, for instance, >> consistently ask what the candidate's vision for the area is, what the >> candidate thinks about liaison relationship, and the like. >> >> When I'm giving feedback, in addition to commenting on the person and >> her work in general, it would be useful to be able to comment on the >> candidate's position statement. >> >> Of course, as I said in my briefer note, there needs to be part of the >> response that's kept to the NomCom, at the choice of the candidate. >> Example: >> >> Q: What is your vision for the Banana Area? (This response will be public.) >> >> A: The Banana Area needs to focus more on organic cultivation, and I >> will lead the area in that direction by [...etc...]. >> >> Q: Is there anything related to the previous question that you want to >> say privately to the NomCom and the confirmation body? >> >> A: The previous AD has been a headstrong proponent of pesticides, and >> his persistence with his company's agenda in that regard has >> [...etc...]. >> >> Similarly for the IAB: the NomCom report showed that there's confusion >> and/or uncertainty about the IAB's role (what it should do) and about >> what it actually does. Public statements about what IAB candidates >> intend to do if appointed would be useful fodder for community >> feedback on those candidates. >> >>> Conversely, I do not see any benefit in making the questionnaires public. >>> Remember, the goal of making the list public is so that people have the >>> information to provide their own comments. The goal is NOT to provoke a >>> public exchange of views on any given area, body, or individual. Evaluating >>> the input is the nomcoms job. >> I'm not suggesting that there be open discussion of this on the >> mailing lists. If the questionnaires were defined this way, and the >> public portions were made public on the NomCom web site, then that >> might (1) promote more community feedback and (2) make more of that >> feedback more valuable to the NomCom. >> >> I would specifically NOT want to see ANY discussion of candidates or >> candidacy on the mailing lists. >> >> Barry >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 rcallon@juniper.net Thu Apr 2 18:17:32 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 6E4EE3A68B1 for ; Thu, 2 Apr 2009 18:17:32 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.464 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.464 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.135, 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 aoyemtgKMyty for ; Thu, 2 Apr 2009 18:17:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: from chip3og61.obsmtp.com (chip3og61.obsmtp.com [64.18.14.187]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F22FD3A6A17 for ; Thu, 2 Apr 2009 18:17:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: from source ([66.129.224.36]) (using TLSv1) by chip3ob61.postini.com ([64.18.6.12]) with SMTP ID DSNKSdVj4x00UL4+FN7zk6DmfP8AMe/SR81a@postini.com; Thu, 02 Apr 2009 18:18:33 PDT Received: from p-emfe01-sac.jnpr.net (66.129.254.72) by P-EMHUB01-HQ.jnpr.net (172.24.192.35) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 8.1.340.0; Thu, 2 Apr 2009 18:17:06 -0700 Received: from p-emlb02-sac.jnpr.net ([66.129.254.47]) by p-emfe01-sac.jnpr.net with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Thu, 2 Apr 2009 18:17:06 -0700 Received: from emailwf1.jnpr.net ([10.10.2.33]) by p-emlb02-sac.jnpr.net with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Thu, 2 Apr 2009 18:17:06 -0700 x-mimeole: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-Class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Thu, 2 Apr 2009 21:17:03 -0400 Message-ID: <3525C9833C09ED418C6FD6CD9514668C060CB33F@emailwf1.jnpr.net> In-Reply-To: <8EFB68EAE061884A8517F2A755E8B60A1CBEEBD1F5@NA-EXMSG-W601.wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.microsoft.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [ietf-nomcom] "Lobbying" Thread-Index: Acmzwcs50FvGjfqjRtGAGBG3SgcCSwAAC35wAAYKfgA= References: <802A89216BB2497B846B0364BD33C01F@china.huawei.com><49D3CD3F.6080301@thinkingcat.com><59C01736E259B7E1F5C37570@eList-eXpress-LLC.local><6c9fcc2a0904020708j48b2e875uaa785f7451f94ff9@mail.gmail.com><49D4CABA.4020707@thinkingcat.com> <49D4CCFD.70103@joelhalpern.com><6c9fcc2a0904020945s25e240a9if50110b2d72c6cf3@mail.gmail.com><8c99930d0904021105x34b648dbta8615ed663cca0c8@mail.gmail.com><9abf48a60904021134n27940665u2f56c2f52477990e@mail.gmail.com> <8EFB68EAE061884A8517F2A755E8B60A1CBEEBD1F5@NA-EXMSG-W601.wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.microsoft.com> From: Ross Callon To: "Barry Leiba" , "Andrew G. Malis" X-OriginalArrivalTime: 03 Apr 2009 01:17:06.0441 (UTC) FILETIME=[E73B1F90:01C9B3F9] Cc: NomComDiscussion , James M Galvin Subject: Re: [ietf-nomcom] "Lobbying" 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, 03 Apr 2009 01:17:32 -0000 > It's obviously a very different situation, but... > Suppose we were nominating a U.S. president by this sort of mechanism, > and you were told that the candidates were Barack Obama, John McCain, > Ralph Nader, Leslie Daigle, and Joel Halpern. The first three have > been in politics for a long time, so you know what they stand for and > you've heard what they aim to do. You know Leslie and Joel from the > IETF, and you really do think they're capable of pretty much anything. > You think they *can* do the job. But do you agree with where they > want to take the country? In US elections, several hundred million people get to vote (based on very precise and strictly enforces rules regarding who is a US citizen and who is not). Thus the several hundred million people need to know what candidates intend to do.=20 In the selection of the IESG, IAB, and so on, the ten nomcom voting members get to vote. Thus the ten nomcom voting members need to know what the candidates intend to do. This process works pretty sell and has a number of advantages, including that the ten voting nomcom members get to personally meet and question the candidates.=20 I think that our nomcom process generally works pretty well. I think that publicly saying who the candidates are that are willing to do the job would allow broader input to nomcom, which would be good. However, I think that turning the entire event into a public political process would not.=20 Thus I am in agreement with Joel, that we should make public the list of who is willing to serve in each position, but not make public the candidate's questionnaire responses.=20 Ross From bernie@ietf.hoeneisen.ch Thu Apr 2 23:13:56 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 A1A663A68C7 for ; Thu, 2 Apr 2009 23:13:56 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.529 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.529 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.070, 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 DZLkcGed2LgF for ; Thu, 2 Apr 2009 23:13:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: from softronics.hoeneisen.ch (softronics.hoeneisen.ch [62.2.86.178]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7F3893A6C09 for ; Thu, 2 Apr 2009 23:13:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]) by softronics.hoeneisen.ch with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Lpcg4-0006XQ-HY; Fri, 03 Apr 2009 08:14:56 +0200 Date: Fri, 3 Apr 2009 08:14:56 +0200 (CEST) From: Bernie Hoeneisen X-X-Sender: bhoeneis@softronics.hoeneisen.ch To: NomComDiscussion In-Reply-To: <49D507B3.4030403@joelhalpern.com> Message-ID: References: <802A89216BB2497B846B0364BD33C01F@china.huawei.com> <49D3CD3F.6080301@thinkingcat.com> <59C01736E259B7E1F5C37570@eList-eXpress-LLC.local> <6c9fcc2a0904020708j48b2e875uaa785f7451f94ff9@mail.gmail.com> <49D4CABA.4020707@thinkingcat.com> <49D4CCFD.70103@joelhalpern.com> <6c9fcc2a0904020945s25e240a9if50110b2d72c6cf3@mail.gmail.com> <8c99930d0904021105x34b648dbta8615ed663cca0c8@mail.gmail.com> <9abf48a60904021134n27940665u2f56c2f52477990e@mail.gmail.com> <49D507B3.4030403@joelhalpern.com> 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: Re: [ietf-nomcom] "Lobbying" 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, 03 Apr 2009 06:13:56 -0000 I agree with Joel, Andrew and other folks who prefer to rather keep questionaires targeted to the NomCom (and confirmirming body) only as it hasbeen the case till now. cheers. Bernie On Thu, 2 Apr 2009, Joel M. Halpern wrote: > I think expecting folks to make "public statements" ends up selecting for the > wrong things. > I don't think we want the nomcom picking folks based on how well they compose > a public description. > > The point of the area vision questions on the questionaire is, I think, about > understanding how the nominee looks at things, not about the nominee > persuading folks of his vision. It is not even about holding the nominee to > his word later about what he says he will do. It serves to frame an > evaluation and understanding. Making the answers public does not help that. > > If the community wants a public discussion of any given area, or all the > aspects of our community, they have tools to make that happen. (To pick on > the SIP folks again, they clearly wanted such a discussion, and they had > one.) > > I seem to be unable to see the value you see in making those public. > And I see significant drawbacks. In spite of your comments about not wanting > discussions of people, I think it will almost inevitably lead to quasi-public > (or fully public) discussions of people. > Yours, > Joel > > Barry Leiba wrote: >>> I'm sorry, but I'm in the other camp with Joel and Spencer. >> >> Oh, no apology needed, to be sure! >> Anyway, I think it's worth another round.... >> >>> candidates will feel more free to speak plainly on any particular >>> question if they know that the answer will be private >> >> That's where they get the "private" section. >> >> But I think potential leaders should make public statements about what >> they intend to do. In our environment, I'd hate to see "campaigning", >> so having the public statement be a public *portion* of the >> questionnaire makes the most sense. >> >>> Making answers public might also color what people will say to Nomcom. >>> If I were on Nomcom, I would prefer hearing comments about candidates >>> based upon their prior work, not based upon what they said in their >>> nomination questionaire. >> >> I think we need both. >> In the example in my last message, suppose you didn't know me very >> well because we worked in different working groups within the Banana >> Area... but you had a definite response to my statement that I'd steer >> the area toward organics. You might strongly agree or disagree, and >> that would be important stuff for the NomCom to know -- is the >> direction I want to take the area a direction that people working in >> the area agree with or not. >> >> My statements might also prompt someone who knows me and would comment >> anyway to mention other things in her comment that she might not have >> thought of. "Oh, yes," she might say, "that's something I want to >> give feedback on (positive or negative) to the NomCom." Someone might >> actually want to refute something I said, having specific >> counterexamples. >> >> >> It's obviously a very different situation, but... >> Suppose we were nominating a U.S. president by this sort of mechanism, >> and you were told that the candidates were Barack Obama, John McCain, >> Ralph Nader, Leslie Daigle, and Joel Halpern. The first three have >> been in politics for a long time, so you know what they stand for and >> you've heard what they aim to do. You know Leslie and Joel from the >> IETF, and you really do think they're capable of pretty much anything. >> You think they *can* do the job. But do you agree with where they >> want to take the country? >> >> So, the League of Women Voters sends them each a questionnaire: >> 1. What would you do about the economy? >> 2. Where do you stand on stem-cell research? >> 3. What should we do about the immigration situation? >> ...etc... >> >> Don't you think their responses to that, and feedback on it from you >> and the rest of the community, would be important for the NomCom's >> decision about who to appoint president? (Or IETF Chair. Or >> whatever.) >> >> Fortunately, the decisions here have far less impact. Still...... >> >> Barry >> > _______________________________________________ > ietf-nomcom mailing list > ietf-nomcom@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-nomcom > From bernie@ietf.hoeneisen.ch Thu Apr 2 23:16:14 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 53F653A6996 for ; Thu, 2 Apr 2009 23:16:14 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.539 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.539 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.060, 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 uztW1Loj-MGD for ; Thu, 2 Apr 2009 23:16:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: from softronics.hoeneisen.ch (softronics.hoeneisen.ch [62.2.86.178]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2BB8928C11A for ; Thu, 2 Apr 2009 23:16:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]) by softronics.hoeneisen.ch with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1LpciH-0006YK-C0 for ietf-nomcom@ietf.org; Fri, 03 Apr 2009 08:17:13 +0200 Date: Fri, 3 Apr 2009 08:17:13 +0200 (CEST) From: Bernie Hoeneisen X-X-Sender: bhoeneis@softronics.hoeneisen.ch To: NomCom Discussion Message-ID: User-Agent: Alpine 2.00 (DEB 1167 2008-08-23) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; format=flowed; charset=US-ASCII 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] Ringers / Padding on Nominee list 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, 03 Apr 2009 06:16:14 -0000 I would like to repeat a statement a made earlier on this list and in the plenary: Under certain circumstances it makes sense to add ringers to the nominee list. One example is if only one nominee applies for position X and adding ringers can trigger more useful feedback on this sole nominee. However, adding ringers should be the exception, and whether or not to add ringers should be at the discretion of the NomCom. Any thoughts on this? cheers, Bernie From lars.eggert@nokia.com Fri Apr 3 04:34:53 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 DBAA43A6AE7 for ; Fri, 3 Apr 2009 04:34:53 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.545 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.545 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.054, 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 zm3XDA5GARxx for ; Fri, 3 Apr 2009 04:34:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.fit.nokia.com (unknown [IPv6:2001:2060:40:1::123]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 35FC03A698F for ; Fri, 3 Apr 2009 04:34:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.0.199] (cs95200.pp.htv.fi [212.90.95.200]) (authenticated bits=0) by mail.fit.nokia.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id n33BZeno054332 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT); Fri, 3 Apr 2009 14:35:41 +0300 (EEST) (envelope-from lars.eggert@nokia.com) Message-Id: From: Lars Eggert To: Ross Callon In-Reply-To: <3525C9833C09ED418C6FD6CD9514668C060CB33F@emailwf1.jnpr.net> Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary=Apple-Mail-32-605813646; micalg=sha1; protocol="application/pkcs7-signature" Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v930.3) Date: Fri, 3 Apr 2009 14:35:34 +0300 References: <802A89216BB2497B846B0364BD33C01F@china.huawei.com><49D3CD3F.6080301@thinkingcat.com><59C01736E259B7E1F5C37570@eList-eXpress-LLC.local><6c9fcc2a0904020708j48b2e875uaa785f7451f94ff9@mail.gmail.com><49D4CABA.4020707@thinkingcat.com> <49D4CCFD.70103@joelhalpern.com><6c9fcc2a0904020945s25e240a9if50110b2d72c6cf3@mail.gmail.com><8c99930d0904021105x34b648dbta8615ed663cca0c8@mail.gmail.com><9abf48a60904021134n27940665u2f56c2f52477990e@mail.gmail.com> <8EFB68EAE061884A8517F2A755E8B60A1CBEEBD1F5@NA-EXMSG-W601.wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.microsoft.com> <3525C9833C09ED418C6FD6CD9514668C060CB33F@emailwf1.jnpr.net> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.930.3) X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.0.1 (mail.fit.nokia.com [212.213.221.39]); Fri, 03 Apr 2009 14:35:42 +0300 (EEST) Cc: NomComDiscussion , Barry Leiba , James M Galvin Subject: Re: [ietf-nomcom] "Lobbying" 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, 03 Apr 2009 11:34:53 -0000 --Apple-Mail-32-605813646 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On 2009-4-3, at 4:17, Ross Callon wrote: > I think that our nomcom process generally works pretty well. I think > that publicly saying who the candidates are that are willing to do the > job would allow broader input to nomcom, which would be good. > However, I > think that turning the entire event into a public political process > would not. > > Thus I am in agreement with Joel, that we should make public the > list of > who is willing to serve in each position, but not make public the > candidate's questionnaire responses. Agree with Ross and Joel. Lars --Apple-Mail-32-605813646 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=smime.p7s Content-Type: application/pkcs7-signature; name=smime.p7s Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 MIAGCSqGSIb3DQEHAqCAMIACAQExCzAJBgUrDgMCGgUAMIAGCSqGSIb3DQEHAQAAoIIGQDCCAvkw ggJioAMCAQICEEi7WbMMKa2GLKFpQDaOBQEwDQYJKoZIhvcNAQEFBQAwYjELMAkGA1UEBhMCWkEx JTAjBgNVBAoTHFRoYXd0ZSBDb25zdWx0aW5nIChQdHkpIEx0ZC4xLDAqBgNVBAMTI1RoYXd0ZSBQ ZXJzb25hbCBGcmVlbWFpbCBJc3N1aW5nIENBMB4XDTA4MDgyMzE3NDMzOVoXDTA5MDgyMzE3NDMz OVowXDEPMA0GA1UEBBMGRWdnZXJ0MQ0wCwYDVQQqEwRMYXJzMRQwEgYDVQQDEwtMYXJzIEVnZ2Vy dDEkMCIGCSqGSIb3DQEJARYVbGFycy5lZ2dlcnRAbm9raWEuY29tMIIBIjANBgkqhkiG9w0BAQEF AAOCAQ8AMIIBCgKCAQEAlwQVktJZCY89iU6jcW1XnZQN+aMgF2utCUT3H3ZKB5Jbet1SDWt0md/W 571bHjxtn9CfEJdochNL3l9f1WiJNdVbJ182557Ltx9SojqthpqtA0jKEqo2gqrf+raUj1demmo0 6ocsLqv046CrwidOp6k0RAfvkKPLhD4PD9Nk3oaZuxqBz1wY4u8Q83iWMArDeXiQxfNZnOBz5cDs VvVjTjitm3VANkbD02tNkwl5AHw7htde4yH8hIwlfzqsAtHBEah3HyOvs9b+gHg2pFz9eS+HuotY ZKycCweRs8NKXoCg+zAkVYi3zvZEH2VOuPlpMQMrB9+fLWg2UBsTeZ864wIDAQABozIwMDAgBgNV HREEGTAXgRVsYXJzLmVnZ2VydEBub2tpYS5jb20wDAYDVR0TAQH/BAIwADANBgkqhkiG9w0BAQUF AAOBgQBMdV2U+ryV5t3nuBFH19XKflodN6Bc60GBYHHY/Z0+Cl08Q75qzTt02IILBg+/YVh/fygb 6pFrOm1sFtLN7fENBfbO2VtpFjP2lGUgbXTVT5xGM6+MtqZiBI6LqexAeY6gsd/taoUfy9fZG42d ciBA9gSGlQjjWQyG8mb5HR8L9jCCAz8wggKooAMCAQICAQ0wDQYJKoZIhvcNAQEFBQAwgdExCzAJ BgNVBAYTAlpBMRUwEwYDVQQIEwxXZXN0ZXJuIENhcGUxEjAQBgNVBAcTCUNhcGUgVG93bjEaMBgG A1UEChMRVGhhd3RlIENvbnN1bHRpbmcxKDAmBgNVBAsTH0NlcnRpZmljYXRpb24gU2VydmljZXMg RGl2aXNpb24xJDAiBgNVBAMTG1RoYXd0ZSBQZXJzb25hbCBGcmVlbWFpbCBDQTErMCkGCSqGSIb3 DQEJARYccGVyc29uYWwtZnJlZW1haWxAdGhhd3RlLmNvbTAeFw0wMzA3MTcwMDAwMDBaFw0xMzA3 MTYyMzU5NTlaMGIxCzAJBgNVBAYTAlpBMSUwIwYDVQQKExxUaGF3dGUgQ29uc3VsdGluZyAoUHR5 KSBMdGQuMSwwKgYDVQQDEyNUaGF3dGUgUGVyc29uYWwgRnJlZW1haWwgSXNzdWluZyBDQTCBnzAN BgkqhkiG9w0BAQEFAAOBjQAwgYkCgYEAxKY8VXNV+065yplaHmjAdQRwnd/p/6Me7L3N9VvyGna9 fww6YfK/Uc4B1OVQCjDXAmNaLIkVcI7dyfArhVqqP3FWy688Cwfn8R+RNiQqE88r1fOCdz0Dviv+ uxg+B79AgAJk16emu59l0cUqVIUPSAR/p7bRPGEEQB5kGXJgt/sCAwEAAaOBlDCBkTASBgNVHRMB Af8ECDAGAQH/AgEAMEMGA1UdHwQ8MDowOKA2oDSGMmh0dHA6Ly9jcmwudGhhd3RlLmNvbS9UaGF3 dGVQZXJzb25hbEZyZWVtYWlsQ0EuY3JsMAsGA1UdDwQEAwIBBjApBgNVHREEIjAgpB4wHDEaMBgG A1UEAxMRUHJpdmF0ZUxhYmVsMi0xMzgwDQYJKoZIhvcNAQEFBQADgYEASIzRUIPqCy7MDaNmrGcP f6+svsIXoUOWlJ1/TCG4+DYfqi2fNi/A9BxQIJNwPP2t4WFiw9k6GX6EsZkbAMUaC4J0niVQlGLH 2ydxVyWN3amcOY6MIE9lX5Xa9/eH1sYITq726jTlEBpbNU1341YheILcIRk13iSx0x1G/11fZU8x ggMQMIIDDAIBATB2MGIxCzAJBgNVBAYTAlpBMSUwIwYDVQQKExxUaGF3dGUgQ29uc3VsdGluZyAo UHR5KSBMdGQuMSwwKgYDVQQDEyNUaGF3dGUgUGVyc29uYWwgRnJlZW1haWwgSXNzdWluZyBDQQIQ SLtZswwprYYsoWlANo4FATAJBgUrDgMCGgUAoIIBbzAYBgkqhkiG9w0BCQMxCwYJKoZIhvcNAQcB MBwGCSqGSIb3DQEJBTEPFw0wOTA0MDMxMTM1MzVaMCMGCSqGSIb3DQEJBDEWBBTCQbxyyKouFILZ 1r9gqklOJbL9RjCBhQYJKwYBBAGCNxAEMXgwdjBiMQswCQYDVQQGEwJaQTElMCMGA1UEChMcVGhh d3RlIENvbnN1bHRpbmcgKFB0eSkgTHRkLjEsMCoGA1UEAxMjVGhhd3RlIFBlcnNvbmFsIEZyZWVt YWlsIElzc3VpbmcgQ0ECEEi7WbMMKa2GLKFpQDaOBQEwgYcGCyqGSIb3DQEJEAILMXigdjBiMQsw CQYDVQQGEwJaQTElMCMGA1UEChMcVGhhd3RlIENvbnN1bHRpbmcgKFB0eSkgTHRkLjEsMCoGA1UE AxMjVGhhd3RlIFBlcnNvbmFsIEZyZWVtYWlsIElzc3VpbmcgQ0ECEEi7WbMMKa2GLKFpQDaOBQEw DQYJKoZIhvcNAQEBBQAEggEAJgTAN4vWkxfxrOfzSV+081Pt/GVB7LUYYBoSo2LhIMnu50kljhTd zVB0UeUHmLK6b1Ru6+lv50PBJRJ1yCz3Re9zQbH40/Dkm3GFvjoW/rAWf48Gcfz8/qx7t0orfA0/ AKyFG+XZ/yeAzbhcVBxzKF3ZlMOmgG+3SiZ8DdxbzvNv0RlFTL4EvmEn3JV1OIe8CcYbwaFyRyq7 ySKvybfLYImIR9T0FHJ9Tj9JAJn8kk8Yzbi+5CKPn9fMFvkvvgGSL3FTqW+vsk7QaJIJcb5H4zER LLM5mLR1h5E/s2CwMqEBFgozEGBHhas4EFlWjjrln4xUbFH7Vc7yWF29emYA7gAAAAAAAA== --Apple-Mail-32-605813646-- From lars.eggert@nokia.com Fri Apr 3 04:43:26 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 764973A682A for ; Fri, 3 Apr 2009 04:43:26 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.547 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.547 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.052, 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 sU6YMy7+7piT for ; Fri, 3 Apr 2009 04:43:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.fit.nokia.com (unknown [IPv6:2001:2060:40:1::123]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 921653A6C08 for ; Fri, 3 Apr 2009 04:43:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.0.199] (cs95200.pp.htv.fi [212.90.95.200]) (authenticated bits=0) by mail.fit.nokia.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id n33BiJ4Q054483 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT); Fri, 3 Apr 2009 14:44:19 +0300 (EEST) (envelope-from lars.eggert@nokia.com) Message-Id: From: Lars Eggert To: Bernie Hoeneisen In-Reply-To: Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary=Apple-Mail-33-606332875; micalg=sha1; protocol="application/pkcs7-signature" Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v930.3) Date: Fri, 3 Apr 2009 14:44:14 +0300 References: X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.930.3) X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.0.1 (mail.fit.nokia.com [212.213.221.39]); Fri, 03 Apr 2009 14:44:19 +0300 (EEST) Cc: NomCom Discussion Subject: Re: [ietf-nomcom] Ringers / Padding on Nominee list 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, 03 Apr 2009 11:43:26 -0000 --Apple-Mail-33-606332875 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi, On 2009-4-3, at 9:17, Bernie Hoeneisen wrote: > I would like to repeat a statement a made earlier on this list and > in the > plenary: Under certain circumstances it makes sense to add ringers > to the > nominee list. so, I'll take en extreme position: I hate ringers. It takes time to write up input to the NomCom via the web form, and I dislike spending the effort when it's clearly going to be useless. It also goes somewhat counter to the idea of being public with the nominee information, because something would be publicized that would be dilluted. And you'd need to request the ringers to lie or at least refuse an answer when someone asks them "so, are you really running?" > One example is if only one nominee applies for position X > and adding ringers can trigger more useful feedback on this sole > nominee. I don't buy this. How will feedback on people that aren't running give you more information about the one that is running? You might hear "oh, X is definitely better than Y", but if X is a ringer, what have you gained here? I'd argue that if the list of willing nominees is published periodically while the nomination period is open, folks that are unhappy with a single candidate will feel a stronger motivation to nominate someone (or self-nomiate) than if they see a list of several folks, some of whom are ringers. > However, adding ringers should be the exception, and whether or not > to add > ringers should be at the discretion of the NomCom. If the consensus is to have ringers, absolutely. But I hope that it won't be :-) Lars --Apple-Mail-33-606332875 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=smime.p7s Content-Type: application/pkcs7-signature; name=smime.p7s Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 MIAGCSqGSIb3DQEHAqCAMIACAQExCzAJBgUrDgMCGgUAMIAGCSqGSIb3DQEHAQAAoIIGQDCCAvkw ggJioAMCAQICEEi7WbMMKa2GLKFpQDaOBQEwDQYJKoZIhvcNAQEFBQAwYjELMAkGA1UEBhMCWkEx JTAjBgNVBAoTHFRoYXd0ZSBDb25zdWx0aW5nIChQdHkpIEx0ZC4xLDAqBgNVBAMTI1RoYXd0ZSBQ ZXJzb25hbCBGcmVlbWFpbCBJc3N1aW5nIENBMB4XDTA4MDgyMzE3NDMzOVoXDTA5MDgyMzE3NDMz OVowXDEPMA0GA1UEBBMGRWdnZXJ0MQ0wCwYDVQQqEwRMYXJzMRQwEgYDVQQDEwtMYXJzIEVnZ2Vy dDEkMCIGCSqGSIb3DQEJARYVbGFycy5lZ2dlcnRAbm9raWEuY29tMIIBIjANBgkqhkiG9w0BAQEF AAOCAQ8AMIIBCgKCAQEAlwQVktJZCY89iU6jcW1XnZQN+aMgF2utCUT3H3ZKB5Jbet1SDWt0md/W 571bHjxtn9CfEJdochNL3l9f1WiJNdVbJ182557Ltx9SojqthpqtA0jKEqo2gqrf+raUj1demmo0 6ocsLqv046CrwidOp6k0RAfvkKPLhD4PD9Nk3oaZuxqBz1wY4u8Q83iWMArDeXiQxfNZnOBz5cDs VvVjTjitm3VANkbD02tNkwl5AHw7htde4yH8hIwlfzqsAtHBEah3HyOvs9b+gHg2pFz9eS+HuotY ZKycCweRs8NKXoCg+zAkVYi3zvZEH2VOuPlpMQMrB9+fLWg2UBsTeZ864wIDAQABozIwMDAgBgNV HREEGTAXgRVsYXJzLmVnZ2VydEBub2tpYS5jb20wDAYDVR0TAQH/BAIwADANBgkqhkiG9w0BAQUF AAOBgQBMdV2U+ryV5t3nuBFH19XKflodN6Bc60GBYHHY/Z0+Cl08Q75qzTt02IILBg+/YVh/fygb 6pFrOm1sFtLN7fENBfbO2VtpFjP2lGUgbXTVT5xGM6+MtqZiBI6LqexAeY6gsd/taoUfy9fZG42d ciBA9gSGlQjjWQyG8mb5HR8L9jCCAz8wggKooAMCAQICAQ0wDQYJKoZIhvcNAQEFBQAwgdExCzAJ BgNVBAYTAlpBMRUwEwYDVQQIEwxXZXN0ZXJuIENhcGUxEjAQBgNVBAcTCUNhcGUgVG93bjEaMBgG A1UEChMRVGhhd3RlIENvbnN1bHRpbmcxKDAmBgNVBAsTH0NlcnRpZmljYXRpb24gU2VydmljZXMg RGl2aXNpb24xJDAiBgNVBAMTG1RoYXd0ZSBQZXJzb25hbCBGcmVlbWFpbCBDQTErMCkGCSqGSIb3 DQEJARYccGVyc29uYWwtZnJlZW1haWxAdGhhd3RlLmNvbTAeFw0wMzA3MTcwMDAwMDBaFw0xMzA3 MTYyMzU5NTlaMGIxCzAJBgNVBAYTAlpBMSUwIwYDVQQKExxUaGF3dGUgQ29uc3VsdGluZyAoUHR5 KSBMdGQuMSwwKgYDVQQDEyNUaGF3dGUgUGVyc29uYWwgRnJlZW1haWwgSXNzdWluZyBDQTCBnzAN BgkqhkiG9w0BAQEFAAOBjQAwgYkCgYEAxKY8VXNV+065yplaHmjAdQRwnd/p/6Me7L3N9VvyGna9 fww6YfK/Uc4B1OVQCjDXAmNaLIkVcI7dyfArhVqqP3FWy688Cwfn8R+RNiQqE88r1fOCdz0Dviv+ uxg+B79AgAJk16emu59l0cUqVIUPSAR/p7bRPGEEQB5kGXJgt/sCAwEAAaOBlDCBkTASBgNVHRMB Af8ECDAGAQH/AgEAMEMGA1UdHwQ8MDowOKA2oDSGMmh0dHA6Ly9jcmwudGhhd3RlLmNvbS9UaGF3 dGVQZXJzb25hbEZyZWVtYWlsQ0EuY3JsMAsGA1UdDwQEAwIBBjApBgNVHREEIjAgpB4wHDEaMBgG A1UEAxMRUHJpdmF0ZUxhYmVsMi0xMzgwDQYJKoZIhvcNAQEFBQADgYEASIzRUIPqCy7MDaNmrGcP f6+svsIXoUOWlJ1/TCG4+DYfqi2fNi/A9BxQIJNwPP2t4WFiw9k6GX6EsZkbAMUaC4J0niVQlGLH 2ydxVyWN3amcOY6MIE9lX5Xa9/eH1sYITq726jTlEBpbNU1341YheILcIRk13iSx0x1G/11fZU8x ggMQMIIDDAIBATB2MGIxCzAJBgNVBAYTAlpBMSUwIwYDVQQKExxUaGF3dGUgQ29uc3VsdGluZyAo UHR5KSBMdGQuMSwwKgYDVQQDEyNUaGF3dGUgUGVyc29uYWwgRnJlZW1haWwgSXNzdWluZyBDQQIQ SLtZswwprYYsoWlANo4FATAJBgUrDgMCGgUAoIIBbzAYBgkqhkiG9w0BCQMxCwYJKoZIhvcNAQcB MBwGCSqGSIb3DQEJBTEPFw0wOTA0MDMxMTQ0MTRaMCMGCSqGSIb3DQEJBDEWBBRESvF4K6p22Jg4 2KFAMo9+fPY5bTCBhQYJKwYBBAGCNxAEMXgwdjBiMQswCQYDVQQGEwJaQTElMCMGA1UEChMcVGhh d3RlIENvbnN1bHRpbmcgKFB0eSkgTHRkLjEsMCoGA1UEAxMjVGhhd3RlIFBlcnNvbmFsIEZyZWVt YWlsIElzc3VpbmcgQ0ECEEi7WbMMKa2GLKFpQDaOBQEwgYcGCyqGSIb3DQEJEAILMXigdjBiMQsw CQYDVQQGEwJaQTElMCMGA1UEChMcVGhhd3RlIENvbnN1bHRpbmcgKFB0eSkgTHRkLjEsMCoGA1UE AxMjVGhhd3RlIFBlcnNvbmFsIEZyZWVtYWlsIElzc3VpbmcgQ0ECEEi7WbMMKa2GLKFpQDaOBQEw DQYJKoZIhvcNAQEBBQAEggEAWTlsfFFbcBKi8RwA/tm5mrHfmQFapnNxlC9DyQg/uGmKY5reqcmZ Hr0g1rtjwKtA2ru9b3fQGG+ZAg2t6yPsT6SfNESX4/+77JJ0ML4pNVP7w23gg1GrWQtbKNlndL74 c8JU/vDKfa479tForQHbRTol3XFsAkhR/sn5rliX/mo0UxvKDKTWUhOBnpJNO2oKrn11Xfu6OH1v Uv2mwnoNHhyN20/WfIeni/KxV8a+i7aD3587r2//wxvW0sYnjXTQLZUwgf4xApdngsWXNGreASLl cYOz7xJoNaZMN0/1PBXXZTYTIo1xudxot3n2gUiqyWowX6Rf/n2CNaUf1JBiRwAAAAAAAA== --Apple-Mail-33-606332875-- From galvin@elistx.com Fri Apr 3 09:58:14 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 7C0E53A6774 for ; Fri, 3 Apr 2009 09:58:14 -0700 (PDT) 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 tUcH8KTeK99k for ; Fri, 3 Apr 2009 09:58:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ee01.elistx.com (ee01.elistx.com [67.154.239.222]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BBD093A67E4 for ; Fri, 3 Apr 2009 09:57:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by elistx.com (PMDF V6.3-2x2 #31546) with ESMTP id <0KHJ00283B2GOJ@elistx.com> for ietf-nomcom@ietf.org; Fri, 03 Apr 2009 12:56:41 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 03 Apr 2009 13:00:28 -0400 From: James M Galvin In-reply-to: <8c99930d0904021105x34b648dbta8615ed663cca0c8@mail.gmail.com> To: NomComDiscussion Message-id: <0C987874B973FBA1762F5700@eList-eXpress-LLC.local> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Mulberry/4.0.8 (Mac OS X) Content-type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=utf-8 Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable Content-disposition: inline References: <802A89216BB2497B846B0364BD33C01F@china.huawei.com> <49D3CD3F.6080301@thinkingcat.com> <59C01736E259B7E1F5C37570@eList-eXpress-LLC.local> <6c9fcc2a0904020708j48b2e875uaa785f7451f94ff9@mail.gmail.com> <49D4CABA.4020707@thinkingcat.com> <49D4CCFD.70103@joelhalpern.com> <6c9fcc2a0904020945s25e240a9if50110b2d72c6cf3@mail.gmail.com> <8c99930d0904021105x34b648dbta8615ed663cca0c8@mail.gmail.com> Subject: Re: [ietf-nomcom] "Lobbying" 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, 03 Apr 2009 16:58:14 -0000 Andy sums up my position nicely. Jim -- On April 2, 2009 2:05:19 PM -0400 "Andrew G. Malis"=20 wrote regarding Re: [ietf-nomcom] "Lobbying" -- > Barry, > > I'm sorry, but I'm in the other camp with Joel and Spencer. I think > candidates will feel more free to speak plainly on any particular > question if they know that the answer will be private to either > Noncom, or Nomcom and the confirming body (with it being clear on = each > question as to who will be reading each answer). There's no way to > predict the way someone will free-associate when answering any > particular question, and making them have to feel like they need to > guard their answers because they will be made public makes for a less > candid answer. > > Making answers public might also color what people will say to = Nomcom. > If I were on Nomcom, I would prefer hearing comments about candidates > based upon their prior work, not based upon what they said in their > nomination questionaire. > > I'm also in agreement with Joel and others on a public binary > expression of interest being OK, but nothing beyond that. > > And I also feel that there's no problem with making the list of > nominated individuals public for the purpose of soliciting comments. > After all, people can be nominated by anyone for any reason - just > being nominated doesn't mean that you self-nominated or otherwise > solicited the nomination. I am very much against the prior practice = of > adding ringers. > > Cheers, > Andy > > On Thu, Apr 2, 2009 at 12:45 PM, Barry Leiba > wrote: > > To be clear, now that I'm back at my computer (it's hard to be as > > clear from the BlackBerry): =C2=A0I think there's useful = information > > contained in the questionnaire responses for the community and for > > those giving feedback. =C2=A0The questionnaires for AD, for = instance, > > consistently ask what the candidate's vision for the area is, what > > the candidate thinks about liaison relationship, and the like. > > > > When I'm giving feedback, in addition to commenting on the person > > and her work in general, it would be useful to be able to comment > > on the candidate's position statement. > > > > Of course, as I said in my briefer note, there needs to be part of > > the response that's kept to the NomCom, at the choice of the > > candidate. Example: > > > > Q: What is your vision for the Banana Area? =C2=A0(This response = will > > be public.) > > > > A: The Banana Area needs to focus more on organic cultivation, and = I > > will lead the area in that direction by [...etc...]. > > > > Q: Is there anything related to the previous question that you want > > to say privately to the NomCom and the confirmation body? > > > > A: The previous AD has been a headstrong proponent of pesticides, > > and his persistence with his company's agenda in that regard has > > [...etc...]. > > > > Similarly for the IAB: the NomCom report showed that there's > > confusion and/or uncertainty about the IAB's role (what it should > > do) and about what it actually does. =C2=A0Public statements about = what > > IAB candidates intend to do if appointed would be useful fodder for > > community feedback on those candidates. > > > >> Conversely, I do not see any benefit in making the questionnaires > >> public. =C2=A0Remember, the goal of making the list public is so = that > >> people have the information to provide their own comments. = =C2=A0The > >> goal is NOT to provoke a public exchange of views on any given > >> area, body, or individual. =C2=A0Evaluating the input is the = nomcoms > >> job. > > > > I'm not suggesting that there be open discussion of this on the > > mailing lists. =C2=A0If the questionnaires were defined this way, = and > > the public portions were made public on the NomCom web site, then > > that might (1) promote more community feedback and (2) make more of > > that feedback more valuable to the NomCom. > > > > I would specifically NOT want to see ANY discussion of candidates = or > > candidacy on the mailing lists. > > > > Barry > > _______________________________________________ > > 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 spencer@wonderhamster.org Fri Apr 3 10:14:39 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 B3CB63A6A44 for ; Fri, 3 Apr 2009 10:14:39 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.347 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.347 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.607, BAYES_20=-0.74] 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 zzKWoLNEnves for ; Fri, 3 Apr 2009 10:14:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mout.perfora.net (mout.perfora.net [74.208.4.194]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C98ED3A6A06 for ; Fri, 3 Apr 2009 10:14:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: from S73602b (w173.z064002096.dfw-tx.dsl.cnc.net [64.2.96.173]) by mrelay.perfora.net (node=mrus0) with ESMTP (Nemesis) id 0MKp8S-1LpmzL09zg-000fmA; Fri, 03 Apr 2009 13:15:33 -0400 Message-ID: <9095EE5BC20C407BB9B043D6DA268B11@china.huawei.com> From: "Spencer Dawkins" To: "NomCom Discussion" References: Date: Fri, 3 Apr 2009 12:15:12 -0500 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: V01U2FsdGVkX18bKHOKNnblTCk5zMW/AfFx5SKZ43yiyuR3LSf iY0tMlTZONdPgwS4MF1WoiYC0gK5spSfR6t0o/D7LS9HXRsFvQ 2DQtA3DNJSO/UPrILZm4NJGsQKMkHFLqtb14opXV6k= Subject: Re: [ietf-nomcom] Ringers / Padding on Nominee list 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, 03 Apr 2009 17:14:39 -0000 Hi, Bernie, >I would like to repeat a statement a made earlier on this list and in the >plenary: Under certain circumstances it makes sense to add ringers to the >nominee list. One example is if only one nominee applies for position X and >adding ringers can trigger more useful feedback on this sole nominee. > > However, adding ringers should be the exception, and whether or not to add > ringers should be at the discretion of the NomCom. > > Any thoughts on this? I was thinking about this prior to the plenary, so thanks for nudging me a couple more times ;-) OK, so we haven't talked about when/how often a NomCom might publish a nominee list publicly (I'm not suggesting that we need to specify much about this in the draft, I'm just saying that some people are assuming that there's a dance-of-seven-veils where people see the current nominee list and can nominate additional folks based on what they are seeing), but let's assume that the NomCom decides it's time to publicly announce an initial nominee list, and the nomination period is still open. If that's the case, I'm much more in favor of saying "don't pad the areas where you only have one (or two) willing nominees, and see how the community reacts to the possibility that there are only one (or two) nominees for that slot". Let's further assume that no additional (willing) nominees surface after the initial list is announced, so that there are still areas with only one (or two) nominees. What do we think the NomCom should do, at that point? I have some opinions, but I'll stop typing now. Thanks, Spencer From erosen@cisco.com Fri Apr 3 10:19:38 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 E8F6928C11C for ; Fri, 3 Apr 2009 10:19:38 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.556 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.556 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.043, 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 QmOXYfwHxEiQ for ; Fri, 3 Apr 2009 10:19:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sj-iport-1.cisco.com (sj-iport-1.cisco.com [171.71.176.70]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2220728C118 for ; Fri, 3 Apr 2009 10:19:38 -0700 (PDT) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.39,320,1235952000"; d="scan'208";a="166331978" Received: from rtp-dkim-1.cisco.com ([64.102.121.158]) by sj-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 03 Apr 2009 17:20:40 +0000 Received: from rtp-core-2.cisco.com (rtp-core-2.cisco.com [64.102.124.13]) by rtp-dkim-1.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id n33HKe1o012383; Fri, 3 Apr 2009 13:20:40 -0400 Received: from erosen-linux.cisco.com (erosen-linux.cisco.com [161.44.70.34]) by rtp-core-2.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id n33HKejx004390; Fri, 3 Apr 2009 17:20:40 GMT Received: from erosen-linux (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by erosen-linux.cisco.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id n33HKdb1020858; Fri, 3 Apr 2009 13:20:39 -0400 To: Christian Huitema In-reply-to: Your message of Thu, 02 Apr 2009 11:44:09 -0700. <8EFB68EAE061884A8517F2A755E8B60A1CBEEBD1F5@NA-EXMSG-W601.wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.microsoft.com> Date: Fri, 03 Apr 2009 13:20:39 -0400 Message-ID: <20857.1238779239@erosen-linux> From: Eric Rosen DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; l=1932; t=1238779240; x=1239643240; c=relaxed/simple; s=rtpdkim1001; h=Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; d=cisco.com; i=erosen@cisco.com; z=From:=20Eric=20Rosen=20 |Subject:=20Re=3A=20[ietf-nomcom]=20=22Lobbying=22=20 |Sender:=20 |To:=20Christian=20Huitema=20; bh=6+5nindUm5aVuZeIBgT8QHgmQp1DZ0wWgIU8NMrArlI=; b=QV9JZRuiU1CICzMU8JA2S0pl+FHkcgyRRq/HzXoa3CwkYaB6pxXiZFrV6t GDC+EoOm4/lDFwp8o+TZE20S5nzETAgzvncQVOjGPuc7i0bNGH4Pds3SWxCT 7m5Wq3tqjB; Authentication-Results: rtp-dkim-1; header.From=erosen@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/rtpdkim1001 verified; ); Cc: NomComDiscussion , Barry Leiba , James M Galvin Subject: Re: [ietf-nomcom] "Lobbying" X-BeenThere: ietf-nomcom@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list Reply-To: erosen@cisco.com 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, 03 Apr 2009 17:19:39 -0000 > Open campaigning essentially transforms the leadership selection into a > political process. Instead of judging people on their personal abilities, > you end up evaluating platforms. In fact, the only things that matter when selecting someone to be an AD are (a) what his/her platform is, (b) whether he/she actually believes in the platform, and (c) whether he/she has the capability to actually carry it out. How can the community be expected to provide feedback on a nominee if the nominee's platform is kept secret? What's the point of trying to judge someone on their personal abilities if you don't know the goals to which those abilities are going to be applied? I think we could get a lot better feedback about a nominee if he/she had to state publicly in advance: - whether they intend to put a lot of energy into making life difficult for everyone else by tweaking the i-d boilerplate - whether they intend to put a lot of energy into making life difficult for everyone else by tweaking the IPR processes until only lawyers can post drafts - whether they intend to put a lot of energy into making life difficult for everyone else by requiring "mandatory implementations" of security features that everyone knows won't really be implemented - whether they intend to put a lot of energy into blocking everything that doesn't advance one of their pet causes - whether they intend to interfere a lot with on-going WGs in their area - whether they intend to slow down work in other areas by instituting new kinds of taxes (err, "considerations" sections) to be paid by people doing the work in other areas - etc., etc. Or perhaps it's better just to rely totally on a randomly selected group of people with no particular qualifications (aka nomcom) to figure this all out in the absence of substantive feedback. From Andrew.Lange@alcatel-lucent.com Fri Apr 3 10:22:21 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 C4B0C28C173 for ; Fri, 3 Apr 2009 10:22:21 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.598 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=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 ywCD5qxMhxGT for ; Fri, 3 Apr 2009 10:22:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: from audl751.usa.alcatel.com (audl751.usa.alcatel.com [143.209.238.164]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9D06A28C118 for ; Fri, 3 Apr 2009 10:22:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: from usdalsbhs01.ad3.ad.alcatel.com (usdalsbhs01.usa.alcatel.com [172.22.216.19]) by audl751.usa.alcatel.com (ALCANET) with ESMTP id n33HNG7w007271; Fri, 3 Apr 2009 11:23:22 -0600 Received: from USDALSMBS02.ad3.ad.alcatel.com ([172.22.216.8]) by usdalsbhs01.ad3.ad.alcatel.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Fri, 3 Apr 2009 12:23:20 -0500 Received: from USDALSMBS05.ad3.ad.alcatel.com ([172.22.216.35]) by USDALSMBS02.ad3.ad.alcatel.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.2499); Fri, 3 Apr 2009 12:23:19 -0500 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C9B480.E1AD067A" Date: Fri, 3 Apr 2009 12:19:01 -0500 Message-ID: <66F9363AB70F764C96547BD8A0A3679E0249550B@USDALSMBS05.ad3.ad.alcatel.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [ietf-nomcom] Ringers / Padding on Nominee list Thread-Index: Acm0f9Pq5QxMNIIzQW2Dwj5E0DRLNQAAHQWm References: <9095EE5BC20C407BB9B043D6DA268B11@china.huawei.com> From: "LANGE Andrew" To: "Spencer Dawkins" , "NomCom Discussion" X-OriginalArrivalTime: 03 Apr 2009 17:23:19.0592 (UTC) FILETIME=[E1EBF280:01C9B480] X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.51 on 143.209.238.34 Subject: Re: [ietf-nomcom] Ringers / Padding on Nominee list 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, 03 Apr 2009 17:22:21 -0000 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C9B480.E1AD067A Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I'm in agreement with Spencer: adding ringers doesn't add much, and can = confuse the process, and introduce some additional perception of a shell = game. If there are only one or two nominees, this is important = information for the people asked to comment as well. They can certainly = say "Oh, definitely don't put Foo up there" or "Please, reopen the call" = if they feel the nominees would do harm to the internet.=20 I would argue that having a running nominee list publicly posted would = be even better. That way, the community can easily see that there is = only one or two nominees, and can nominate additional people. This will = help to prevent the situation from occurring to begin with. Andrew -----Original Message----- From: ietf-nomcom-bounces@ietf.org on behalf of Spencer Dawkins Sent: Fri 4/3/2009 10:15 AM To: NomCom Discussion Subject: Re: [ietf-nomcom] Ringers / Padding on Nominee list =20 Hi, Bernie, >I would like to repeat a statement a made earlier on this list and in = the=20 >plenary: Under certain circumstances it makes sense to add ringers to = the=20 >nominee list. One example is if only one nominee applies for position X = and=20 >adding ringers can trigger more useful feedback on this sole nominee. > > However, adding ringers should be the exception, and whether or not to = add > ringers should be at the discretion of the NomCom. > > Any thoughts on this? I was thinking about this prior to the plenary, so thanks for nudging me = a=20 couple more times ;-) OK, so we haven't talked about when/how often a NomCom might publish a=20 nominee list publicly (I'm not suggesting that we need to specify much = about=20 this in the draft, I'm just saying that some people are assuming that=20 there's a dance-of-seven-veils where people see the current nominee list = and=20 can nominate additional folks based on what they are seeing), but let's=20 assume that the NomCom decides it's time to publicly announce an initial = nominee list, and the nomination period is still open. If that's the case, I'm much more in favor of saying "don't pad the = areas=20 where you only have one (or two) willing nominees, and see how the = community=20 reacts to the possibility that there are only one (or two) nominees for = that=20 slot". Let's further assume that no additional (willing) nominees surface after = the=20 initial list is announced, so that there are still areas with only one = (or=20 two) nominees. What do we think the NomCom should do, at that point? I have some opinions, but I'll stop typing now. Thanks, Spencer=20 _______________________________________________ ietf-nomcom mailing list ietf-nomcom@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-nomcom ------_=_NextPart_001_01C9B480.E1AD067A Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable RE: [ietf-nomcom] Ringers / Padding on Nominee list

I'm in agreement with Spencer: adding ringers doesn't = add much, and can confuse the process, and introduce some additional = perception of a shell game. If there are only one or two nominees, this = is important information for the people asked to comment as well.  = They can certainly say "Oh, definitely don't put Foo up there" = or "Please, reopen the call" if they feel the nominees would = do harm to the internet.

I would argue that having a running nominee list publicly posted would = be even better.  That way, the community can easily see that there = is only one or two nominees, and can nominate additional people.  = This will help to prevent the situation from occurring to begin = with.

Andrew


-----Original Message-----
From: ietf-nomcom-bounces@ietf.org on behalf of Spencer Dawkins
Sent: Fri 4/3/2009 10:15 AM
To: NomCom Discussion
Subject: Re: [ietf-nomcom] Ringers / Padding on Nominee list

Hi, Bernie,

>I would like to repeat a statement a made earlier on this list and = in the
>plenary: Under certain circumstances it makes sense to add ringers = to the
>nominee list. One example is if only one nominee applies for = position X and
>adding ringers can trigger more useful feedback on this sole = nominee.
>
> However, adding ringers should be the exception, and whether or not = to add
> ringers should be at the discretion of the NomCom.
>
> Any thoughts on this?

I was thinking about this prior to the plenary, so thanks for nudging me = a
couple more times ;-)

OK, so we haven't talked about when/how often a NomCom might publish = a
nominee list publicly (I'm not suggesting that we need to specify much = about
this in the draft, I'm just saying that some people are assuming = that
there's a dance-of-seven-veils where people see the current nominee list = and
can nominate additional folks based on what they are seeing), but = let's
assume that the NomCom decides it's time to publicly announce an = initial
nominee list, and the nomination period is still open.

If that's the case, I'm much more in favor of saying "don't pad the = areas
where you only have one (or two) willing nominees, and see how the = community
reacts to the possibility that there are only one (or two) nominees for = that
slot".

Let's further assume that no additional (willing) nominees surface after = the
initial list is announced, so that there are still areas with only one = (or
two) nominees.

What do we think the NomCom should do, at that point?

I have some opinions, but I'll stop typing now.

Thanks,

Spencer


_______________________________________________
ietf-nomcom mailing list
ietf-nomcom@ietf.org
https://www.ie= tf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-nomcom

------_=_NextPart_001_01C9B480.E1AD067A-- From galvin@elistx.com Fri Apr 3 10:34:08 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 83FA73A6891 for ; Fri, 3 Apr 2009 10:34:08 -0700 (PDT) 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 qdDSgj25hqNg for ; Fri, 3 Apr 2009 10:34:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ee01.elistx.com (ee01.elistx.com [67.154.239.222]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7F23D3A67EC for ; Fri, 3 Apr 2009 10:34:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by elistx.com (PMDF V6.3-2x2 #31546) with ESMTP id <0KHJ003EOCQSLE@elistx.com> for ietf-nomcom@ietf.org; Fri, 03 Apr 2009 13:32:53 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 03 Apr 2009 13:36:40 -0400 From: James M Galvin In-reply-to: <9095EE5BC20C407BB9B043D6DA268B11@china.huawei.com> To: NomCom Discussion Message-id: <2D6D09EF4262A274AF556633@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: <9095EE5BC20C407BB9B043D6DA268B11@china.huawei.com> Subject: Re: [ietf-nomcom] Ringers / Padding on Nominee list 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, 03 Apr 2009 17:34:08 -0000 I've been thinking about this issue of "when to publish the nominee list" and the related "is the nominee list ever closed". The NOMCOM document never actually says that the nominee list closes. It only speaks to the fact that the community needs a minimum amount of time to propose nominees. I think this is important. What it means to me is that NOMCOM should maintain a public list on a web site somewhere of all those people who have agreed to be considered for some position. Thus, there is one check before a name gets on the nominee list: does the nominated person (regardless of the source of the nomination) agree to be considered? If the answer is yes then the name gets put on the list. I think the list should amended as soon after a "yes" is received as practical. This applies throughout the NOMCOM process until candidates have been confirmed. The nominee list should not state what position a nominee is a candidate for. This is because this can change. If somebody changes their mind about being considered I think the name should be removed from the list. Let's just keep it simple, i.e., no keeping a list of those that withdrew. And I do think that anybody who is a nominee needs to be listed. Thus, if the NOMCOM decides it might move someone currently serving on the IESG, IAB, or IAOC that is not currently in an open seat, then that name needs to be added to the list. The NOMCOM document currently allows for some amount of confidentiality about this move, which if we want to continue we will need to allow some "wiggle room" in the phrase "the list should be amended as soon after a "yes" is received as practical," which I think has plenty of the desired wiggle room. Jim -- On April 3, 2009 12:15:12 PM -0500 Spencer Dawkins wrote regarding Re: [ietf-nomcom] Ringers / Padding on Nominee list -- > Hi, Bernie, > > > I would like to repeat a statement a made earlier on this list and > > in the plenary: Under certain circumstances it makes sense to add > > ringers to the nominee list. One example is if only one nominee > > applies for position X and adding ringers can trigger more useful > > feedback on this sole nominee. > > > > However, adding ringers should be the exception, and whether or not > > to add ringers should be at the discretion of the NomCom. > > > > Any thoughts on this? > > I was thinking about this prior to the plenary, so thanks for nudging > me a couple more times ;-) > > OK, so we haven't talked about when/how often a NomCom might publish > a nominee list publicly (I'm not suggesting that we need to specify > much about this in the draft, I'm just saying that some people are > assuming that there's a dance-of-seven-veils where people see the > current nominee list and can nominate additional folks based on what > they are seeing), but let's assume that the NomCom decides it's time > to publicly announce an initial nominee list, and the nomination > period is still open. > > If that's the case, I'm much more in favor of saying "don't pad the > areas where you only have one (or two) willing nominees, and see how > the community reacts to the possibility that there are only one (or > two) nominees for that slot". > > Let's further assume that no additional (willing) nominees surface > after the initial list is announced, so that there are still areas > with only one (or two) nominees. > > What do we think the NomCom should do, at that point? > > I have some opinions, but I'll stop typing now. > > Thanks, > > Spencer > > _______________________________________________ > ietf-nomcom mailing list > ietf-nomcom@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-nomcom From jmh@joelhalpern.com Fri Apr 3 10:40:55 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 675123A6891 for ; Fri, 3 Apr 2009 10:40:55 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.477 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.477 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.122, 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 bRSPAtKQG+OU for ; Fri, 3 Apr 2009 10:40:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.mail.tigertech.net (hermes.mail.tigertech.net [64.62.209.72]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6D55A3A6BC6 for ; Fri, 3 Apr 2009 10:40:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hermes.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7F4604306EC; Fri, 3 Apr 2009 10:41:57 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at hermes.tigertech.net Received: from [10.10.10.100] (pool-71-161-52-88.clppva.btas.verizon.net [71.161.52.88]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by hermes.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7DC004305D0; Fri, 3 Apr 2009 10:41:56 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <49D64A60.5060204@joelhalpern.com> Date: Fri, 03 Apr 2009 13:41:52 -0400 From: "Joel M. Halpern" User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.21 (Windows/20090302) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: James M Galvin References: <9095EE5BC20C407BB9B043D6DA268B11@china.huawei.com> <2D6D09EF4262A274AF556633@eList-eXpress-LLC.local> In-Reply-To: <2D6D09EF4262A274AF556633@eList-eXpress-LLC.local> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: NomCom Discussion Subject: Re: [ietf-nomcom] Ringers / Padding on Nominee list 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, 03 Apr 2009 17:40:55 -0000 I agree that simply keeping the current list of nominees available is the simplest and most effective technique. (THere may be an argument for delaying the initial availability of the lsit by a few days, but that is a nit.) I would actually include positions. Folks are skilled at different things, and just as I want to avoid padding the list, I don't want folks trying to give the nomcom comments on whether a nominee would be good for the IAOC when that is not what they are being considered for. As with the list of nominees, the list of positions under consideration should also be updated as soon as the nomcom or the individual changes the list. There is a drawback to this. Folks may not want to be seen as offering themselves for too many positions. Remember however that many nominations are not self-nominations, so willingness to serve in several capacities does not indicate desire or forwardness. And we should not make public whether or not a nomination is a self-nomination. Yours, Joel James M Galvin wrote: > I've been thinking about this issue of "when to publish the nominee > list" and the related "is the nominee list ever closed". > > The NOMCOM document never actually says that the nominee list closes. It > only speaks to the fact that the community needs a minimum amount of > time to propose nominees. I think this is important. > > What it means to me is that NOMCOM should maintain a public list on a > web site somewhere of all those people who have agreed to be considered > for some position. > > Thus, there is one check before a name gets on the nominee list: does > the nominated person (regardless of the source of the nomination) agree > to be considered? If the answer is yes then the name gets put on the > list. I think the list should amended as soon after a "yes" is received > as practical. This applies throughout the NOMCOM process until > candidates have been confirmed. > > The nominee list should not state what position a nominee is a candidate > for. This is because this can change. > > If somebody changes their mind about being considered I think the name > should be removed from the list. Let's just keep it simple, i.e., no > keeping a list of those that withdrew. > > And I do think that anybody who is a nominee needs to be listed. Thus, > if the NOMCOM decides it might move someone currently serving on the > IESG, IAB, or IAOC that is not currently in an open seat, then that name > needs to be added to the list. The NOMCOM document currently allows for > some amount of confidentiality about this move, which if we want to > continue we will need to allow some "wiggle room" in the phrase "the > list should be amended as soon after a "yes" is received as practical," > which I think has plenty of the desired wiggle room. > > Jim > > > > > > > -- On April 3, 2009 12:15:12 PM -0500 Spencer Dawkins > wrote regarding Re: [ietf-nomcom] Ringers / > Padding on Nominee list -- > >> Hi, Bernie, >> >> > I would like to repeat a statement a made earlier on this list and >> > in the plenary: Under certain circumstances it makes sense to add >> > ringers to the nominee list. One example is if only one nominee >> > applies for position X and adding ringers can trigger more useful >> > feedback on this sole nominee. >> > >> > However, adding ringers should be the exception, and whether or not >> > to add ringers should be at the discretion of the NomCom. >> > >> > Any thoughts on this? >> >> I was thinking about this prior to the plenary, so thanks for nudging >> me a couple more times ;-) >> >> OK, so we haven't talked about when/how often a NomCom might publish >> a nominee list publicly (I'm not suggesting that we need to specify >> much about this in the draft, I'm just saying that some people are >> assuming that there's a dance-of-seven-veils where people see the >> current nominee list and can nominate additional folks based on what >> they are seeing), but let's assume that the NomCom decides it's time >> to publicly announce an initial nominee list, and the nomination >> period is still open. >> >> If that's the case, I'm much more in favor of saying "don't pad the >> areas where you only have one (or two) willing nominees, and see how >> the community reacts to the possibility that there are only one (or >> two) nominees for that slot". >> >> Let's further assume that no additional (willing) nominees surface >> after the initial list is announced, so that there are still areas >> with only one (or two) nominees. >> >> What do we think the NomCom should do, at that point? >> >> I have some opinions, but I'll stop typing now. >> >> 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 fred@cisco.com Fri Apr 3 11:16:01 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 799763A6C87 for ; Fri, 3 Apr 2009 11:16:01 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -106.462 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.462 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.137, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, 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 tgHZ8Z3Cvp1f for ; Fri, 3 Apr 2009 11:16:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sj-iport-1.cisco.com (sj-iport-1.cisco.com [171.71.176.70]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AE7A33A6C52 for ; Fri, 3 Apr 2009 11:16:00 -0700 (PDT) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.39,320,1235952000"; d="scan'208";a="166364773" Received: from sj-dkim-3.cisco.com ([171.71.179.195]) by sj-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 03 Apr 2009 18:17:03 +0000 Received: from sj-core-1.cisco.com (sj-core-1.cisco.com [171.71.177.237]) by sj-dkim-3.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id n33IH3rd010037; Fri, 3 Apr 2009 11:17:03 -0700 Received: from stealth-10-32-244-218.cisco.com (stealth-10-32-244-218.cisco.com [10.32.244.218]) by sj-core-1.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id n33IGfPE021203; Fri, 3 Apr 2009 18:17:03 GMT Message-Id: <7E896683-A9E7-4D59-AAF8-289F527A07BB@cisco.com> From: Fred Baker To: erosen@cisco.com In-Reply-To: <20857.1238779239@erosen-linux> 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, 3 Apr 2009 11:17:03 -0700 References: <20857.1238779239@erosen-linux> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.930.3) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; l=2742; t=1238782623; x=1239646623; c=relaxed/simple; s=sjdkim3002; h=Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; d=cisco.com; i=fred@cisco.com; z=From:=20Fred=20Baker=20 |Subject:=20Re=3A=20[ietf-nomcom]=20=22Lobbying=22 |Sender:=20; bh=mxbTrAWfsvCHOENeSbnfalbYb/RxgvAleTrlBz+yoUg=; b=LhI1Giwd8dyFVg0jQxMDrb6AU59F+hyccjwl+GL3POGdCaGQVKCgdd8S5k qVNXvuQPnpcV79TdUsk6X1PGpIcXWNZvO/XTwpop3kaayazPUcjQfJivT2lT CtCf43fxX6; Authentication-Results: sj-dkim-3; header.From=fred@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/sjdkim3002 verified; ); Cc: Barry Leiba , NomComDiscussion , James M Galvin Subject: Re: [ietf-nomcom] "Lobbying" 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, 03 Apr 2009 18:16:01 -0000 On Apr 3, 2009, at 10:20 AM, Eric Rosen wrote: > >> Open campaigning essentially transforms the leadership selection >> into a >> political process. Instead of judging people on their personal >> abilities, >> you end up evaluating platforms. > > In fact, the only things that matter when selecting someone to be > an AD are > (a) what his/her platform is, (b) whether he/she actually > believes in the > platform, and (c) whether he/she has the capability to actually > carry it > out. > > How can the community be expected to provide feedback on a > nominee if the > nominee's platform is kept secret? > > What's the point of trying to judge someone on their personal > abilities if > you don't know the goals to which those abilities are going to be > applied? I doubt that there are many real secrets there. What would you guess an AD's job is, or an IAB member's job? Every proto-AD I have spoken with has had as an agenda to do that job. > I think we could get a lot better feedback about a nominee if he/ > she had to > state publicly in advance: > > - whether they intend to put a lot of energy into making life > difficult for > everyone else by tweaking the i-d boilerplate > > - whether they intend to put a lot of energy into making life > difficult for > everyone else by tweaking the IPR processes until only lawyers > can post > drafts > > - whether they intend to put a lot of energy into making life > difficult for > everyone else by requiring "mandatory implementations" of > security > features that everyone knows won't really be implemented > > - whether they intend to put a lot of energy into blocking > everything that > doesn't advance one of their pet causes > > - whether they intend to interfere a lot with on-going WGs in their > area > > - whether they intend to slow down work in other areas by > instituting new > kinds of taxes (err, "considerations" sections) to be paid by > people doing > the work in other areas > > - etc., etc. How many ADs do you know of that went into the job with those kinds of statements in their heads, or who operate with those kinds of statements in their heads? That may be how it turns out, but folks don't set out to screw up. > Or perhaps it's better just to rely totally on a randomly selected > group of > people with no particular qualifications (aka nomcom) to figure this > all out > in the absence of substantive feedback. > > > > > _______________________________________________ > ietf-nomcom mailing list > ietf-nomcom@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-nomcom From danny@tcb.net Fri Apr 3 13:10:56 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 325BD3A6899 for ; Fri, 3 Apr 2009 13:10:56 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.997 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.997 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.120, 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 sZmFNBsugM5q for ; Fri, 3 Apr 2009 13:10:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: from dog.tcb.net (dog.tcb.net [64.78.150.133]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7E34A3A6819 for ; Fri, 3 Apr 2009 13:10:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: by dog.tcb.net (Postfix, from userid 0) id 7DAC12684EA; Fri, 3 Apr 2009 14:11:58 -0600 (MDT) Received: from jchouinard-sim-102.eng.ellacoya.com (97-122-114-19.hlrn.qwest.net [97.122.114.19]) (authenticated-user danny) (TLSv1/SSLv3 AES128-SHA 128/128) by dog.tcb.net with SMTP; for ietf-nomcom@ietf.org; Fri, 03 Apr 2009 14:11:58 -0600 (MDT) (envelope-from danny@tcb.net) X-Avenger: version=0.7.8; receiver=dog.tcb.net; client-ip=97.122.114.19; client-port=62338; syn-fingerprint=65535:55:1:64:M1408,N,W3,N,N,T,S; data-bytes=0 Message-Id: <0E569C5D-7DA3-41B8-A721-F3E6E1A44F1E@tcb.net> From: Danny McPherson To: NomCom Discussion In-Reply-To: <49D64A60.5060204@joelhalpern.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, 3 Apr 2009 14:11:57 -0600 References: <9095EE5BC20C407BB9B043D6DA268B11@china.huawei.com> <2D6D09EF4262A274AF556633@eList-eXpress-LLC.local> <49D64A60.5060204@joelhalpern.com> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.930.3) Subject: Re: [ietf-nomcom] Ringers / Padding on Nominee list 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, 03 Apr 2009 20:10:56 -0000 On Apr 3, 2009, at 11:41 AM, Joel M. Halpern wrote: > I agree that simply keeping the current list of nominees available > is the simplest and most effective technique. (THere may be an > argument for delaying the initial availability of the lsit by a few > days, but that is a nit.) > > I would actually include positions. Folks are skilled at different > things, and just as I want to avoid padding the list, I don't want > folks trying to give the nomcom comments on whether a nominee would > be good for the IAOC when that is not what they are being considered > for. > As with the list of nominees, the list of positions under > consideration should also be updated as soon as the nomcom or the > individual changes the list. > > There is a drawback to this. Folks may not want to be seen as > offering themselves for too many positions. Remember however that > many nominations are not self-nominations, so willingness to serve > in several capacities does not indicate desire or forwardness. > And we should not make public whether or not a nomination is a self- > nomination. What he said... -danny From danny@tcb.net Fri Apr 3 13:20:25 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 8D0EC3A6AA3 for ; Fri, 3 Apr 2009 13:20:25 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.999 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.118, 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 KhDuFi7hmigZ for ; Fri, 3 Apr 2009 13:20:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: from dog.tcb.net (dog.tcb.net [64.78.150.133]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 21C563A6A85 for ; Fri, 3 Apr 2009 13:20:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: by dog.tcb.net (Postfix, from userid 0) id 395762684EA; Fri, 3 Apr 2009 14:21:25 -0600 (MDT) Received: from jchouinard-sim-102.eng.ellacoya.com (97-122-114-19.hlrn.qwest.net [97.122.114.19]) (authenticated-user danny) (TLSv1/SSLv3 AES128-SHA 128/128) by dog.tcb.net with SMTP; for ietf-nomcom@ietf.org; Fri, 03 Apr 2009 14:21:25 -0600 (MDT) (envelope-from danny@tcb.net) X-Avenger: version=0.7.8; receiver=dog.tcb.net; client-ip=97.122.114.19; client-port=62378; syn-fingerprint=65535:55:1:64:M1408,N,W3,N,N,T,S; data-bytes=0 Message-Id: <18E203E5-CBDE-40A7-A10A-93E534F066F2@tcb.net> From: Danny McPherson To: NomComDiscussion 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, 3 Apr 2009 14:21:24 -0600 References: <802A89216BB2497B846B0364BD33C01F@china.huawei.com><49D3CD3F.6080301@thinkingcat.com><59C01736E259B7E1F5C37570@eList-eXpress-LLC.local><6c9fcc2a0904020708j48b2e875uaa785f7451f94ff9@mail.gmail.com><49D4CABA.4020707@thinkingcat.com> <49D4CCFD.70103@joelhalpern.com><6c9fcc2a0904020945s25e240a9if50110b2d72c6cf3@mail.gmail.com><8c99930d0904021105x34b648dbta8615ed663cca0c8@mail.gmail.com><9abf48a60904021134n27940665u2f56c2f52477990e@mail.gmail.com> <8EFB68EAE061884A8517F2A755E8B60A1CBEEBD1F5@NA-EXMSG-W601.wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.microsoft.com> <3525C9833C09ED418C6FD6CD9514668C060CB33F@emailwf1.jnpr.net> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.930.3) Subject: Re: [ietf-nomcom] "Lobbying" 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, 03 Apr 2009 20:20:25 -0000 On Apr 3, 2009, at 5:35 AM, Lars Eggert wrote: > On 2009-4-3, at 4:17, Ross Callon wrote: >> I think that our nomcom process generally works pretty well. I think >> that publicly saying who the candidates are that are willing to do >> the >> job would allow broader input to nomcom, which would be good. >> However, I >> think that turning the entire event into a public political process >> would not. >> >> Thus I am in agreement with Joel, that we should make public the >> list of >> who is willing to serve in each position, but not make public the >> candidate's questionnaire responses. > > Agree with Ross and Joel. Yet another "me too"... -danny From stbryant@cisco.com Fri Apr 3 13:21:52 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 2BA5F3A69F1 for ; Fri, 3 Apr 2009 13:21:52 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -7.59 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.59 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.991, 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 uJ1iU1YiLm8t for ; Fri, 3 Apr 2009 13:21:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sj-iport-2.cisco.com (sj-iport-2.cisco.com [171.71.176.71]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 34EB33A6A3E for ; Fri, 3 Apr 2009 13:21:51 -0700 (PDT) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.39,321,1235952000"; d="scan'208";a="150693471" Received: from ams-dkim-2.cisco.com ([144.254.224.139]) by sj-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 03 Apr 2009 20:22:53 +0000 Received: from ams-core-1.cisco.com (ams-core-1.cisco.com [144.254.224.150]) by ams-dkim-2.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id n33KMo8U001779; Fri, 3 Apr 2009 22:22:50 +0200 Received: from cisco.com (mrwint.cisco.com [64.103.71.48]) by ams-core-1.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id n33KMoaX026377; Fri, 3 Apr 2009 20:22:50 GMT Received: from Stewarts-Computer.local (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by cisco.com (8.11.7p3+Sun/8.8.8) with ESMTP id n33KMnI02620; Fri, 3 Apr 2009 21:22:49 +0100 (BST) Message-ID: <49D67019.4090709@cisco.com> Date: Fri, 03 Apr 2009 21:22:49 +0100 From: Stewart Bryant User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.19 (Macintosh/20081209) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Brian E Carpenter References: <802A89216BB2497B846B0364BD33C01F@china.huawei.com> <49D3CD3F.6080301@thinkingcat.com> <59C01736E259B7E1F5C37570@eList-eXpress-LLC.local> <6c9fcc2a0904020708j48b2e875uaa785f7451f94ff9@mail.gmail.com> <49D4CABA.4020707@thinkingcat.com> <49D4CCFD.70103@joelhalpern.com> <6c9fcc2a0904020945s25e240a9if50110b2d72c6cf3@mail.gmail.com> <8c99930d0904021105x34b648dbta8615ed663cca0c8@mail.gmail.com> <49D541B5.3040007@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <49D541B5.3040007@gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; l=1722; t=1238790170; x=1239654170; c=relaxed/simple; s=amsdkim2001; h=Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; d=cisco.com; i=stbryant@cisco.com; z=From:=20Stewart=20Bryant=20 |Subject:=20Re=3A=20[ietf-nomcom]=20=22Lobbying=22 |Sender:=20; bh=djdJ8m3J4ru6Fj7MuLLmJpA0CHk1PzJbVAeI7K7h0is=; b=EBhtnjVcPAvxumCToN47wQBVS7goCz5qD0/WyXIFyBUqOni3TOV0Te3Bhp DQzf6FGqopuQOrm97tnh/S/y+cFWAK8228/DLcYnXCVhiIyfR9F/yan/X561 NYa58eqSTI; Authentication-Results: ams-dkim-2; header.From=stbryant@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/amsdkim2001 verified; ); Cc: NomComDiscussion Subject: Re: [ietf-nomcom] "Lobbying" X-BeenThere: ietf-nomcom@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list Reply-To: stbryant@cisco.com 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, 03 Apr 2009 20:21:52 -0000 +1 Stewart Brian E Carpenter wrote: > +1 to everything that Andy says below. That seems like > the right balance, and a big enough change from current > practice that we can expect a real difference, without > breaking everything. > > Brian > > On 2009-04-03 07:05, Andrew G. Malis wrote: > >> Barry, >> >> I'm sorry, but I'm in the other camp with Joel and Spencer. I think >> candidates will feel more free to speak plainly on any particular >> question if they know that the answer will be private to either >> Noncom, or Nomcom and the confirming body (with it being clear on each >> question as to who will be reading each answer). There's no way to >> predict the way someone will free-associate when answering any >> particular question, and making them have to feel like they need to >> guard their answers because they will be made public makes for a less >> candid answer. >> >> Making answers public might also color what people will say to Nomcom. >> If I were on Nomcom, I would prefer hearing comments about candidates >> based upon their prior work, not based upon what they said in their >> nomination questionaire. >> >> I'm also in agreement with Joel and others on a public binary >> expression of interest being OK, but nothing beyond that. >> >> And I also feel that there's no problem with making the list of >> nominated individuals public for the purpose of soliciting comments. >> After all, people can be nominated by anyone for any reason - just >> being nominated doesn't mean that you self-nominated or otherwise >> solicited the nomination. I am very much against the prior practice of >> adding ringers. >> >> Cheers, >> Andy >> >> From danny@tcb.net Fri Apr 3 14:40:01 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 172923A6810 for ; Fri, 3 Apr 2009 14:40:01 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.073 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.073 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.815, BAYES_20=-0.74, 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 vmUXrzLHzyKW for ; Fri, 3 Apr 2009 14:40:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: from dog.tcb.net (dog.tcb.net [64.78.150.133]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 637AA3A6358 for ; Fri, 3 Apr 2009 14:40:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: by dog.tcb.net (Postfix, from userid 0) id 6E20E2684EA; Fri, 3 Apr 2009 15:41:03 -0600 (MDT) Received: from jchouinard-sim-102.eng.ellacoya.com (97-122-114-19.hlrn.qwest.net [97.122.114.19]) (authenticated-user danny) (TLSv1/SSLv3 AES128-SHA 128/128) by dog.tcb.net with SMTP; Fri, 03 Apr 2009 15:41:03 -0600 (MDT) (envelope-from danny@tcb.net) X-Avenger: version=0.7.8; receiver=dog.tcb.net; client-ip=97.122.114.19; client-port=64287; syn-fingerprint=65535:55:1:64:M1408,N,W3,N,N,T,S; data-bytes=0 Message-Id: From: Danny McPherson To: erosen@cisco.com In-Reply-To: <20857.1238779239@erosen-linux> 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, 3 Apr 2009 15:41:02 -0600 References: <20857.1238779239@erosen-linux> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.930.3) Cc: NomComDiscussion Discussion Subject: Re: [ietf-nomcom] "Lobbying" 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, 03 Apr 2009 21:40:01 -0000 On Apr 3, 2009, at 11:20 AM, Eric Rosen wrote: > Or perhaps it's better just to rely totally on a randomly selected > group of > people with no particular qualifications (aka nomcom) to figure this > all out > in the absence of substantive feedback. [I started to not reply to this, and promise in advance I won't contribute further to this piece of the thread - but here it is anyway...] Eric, I don't see where you've even volunteered for a NomCom since 2004, but had you been on a NomCom trudging through the mountain of feedback they receive ( have, several times), whether "substantive" or not (something which is largely subjective), you might well take issue with that statement. I would also observe that those things you apparently consider as put in place simply to make life difficult certainly aren't sexy or fun for IETF leadership, but they're not there because folks were bored either. Whether you like it or not, they're there to protect you, the IETF, and the larger Internet... -danny From ldondeti@qualcomm.com Fri Apr 3 17:43:14 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 8C7B73A6947 for ; Fri, 3 Apr 2009 17:43:14 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[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 DEDQTNC3uyVp for ; Fri, 3 Apr 2009 17:43:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: from wolverine02.qualcomm.com (wolverine02.qualcomm.com [199.106.114.251]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BB44C3A6912 for ; Fri, 3 Apr 2009 17:43:00 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=qualcomm.com; i=ldondeti@qualcomm.com; q=dns/txt; s=qcdkim; t=1238805844; x=1270341844; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc: subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:x-ironport-av; z=Message-ID:=20<49D6AD38.2080406@qualcomm.com>|Date:=20Sa t,=2004=20Apr=202009=2006:13:36=20+0530|From:=20Lakshmina th=20Dondeti=20|User-Agent:=20Mozi lla/5.0=20(Windows=3B=20U=3B=20Windows=20NT=205.1=3B=20en -US=3B=20rv:1.9.1b3pre)=20Gecko/20090223=20Thunderbird/3. 0b2|MIME-Version:=201.0|To:=20Danny=20McPherson=20|CC:=20"erosen@cisco.com"=20, =0D=0A=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20NomComDiscussion=20Discussi on=20|Subject:=20Re:=20[ietf-nomcom ]=20"Lobbying"|References:=20<20857.1238779239@erosen-lin ux>=20 |In-Reply-To:=20|Content-Type:=20text/plain=3B=20charset=3DISO-8859- 15=3B=20format=3Dflowed|Content-Transfer-Encoding:=207bit |X-IronPort-AV:=20E=3DMcAfee=3Bi=3D"5300,2777,5573"=3B=20 a=3D"16870524"; bh=h5WMKF8PK3wDZhsS3QjBL8gpoKGA9CKzcNVXNfBpD7E=; b=wkDyaqW7y+bJ9ZEqZ+6g9VylbZpz9g53pVslWbE/FiQg3t/X1YQce7tw +QZXUSIdIAPOY4lsly/JDrDaq5EJA1JCH6u54rQYBkgAGdi91Ljhjl+Ab BSqlIpobZFYhAMkiQCSWZ2Yk1h6vGcv9L6cvh993/XJTndJi1sis31tB4 o=; X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="5300,2777,5573"; a="16870524" Received: from pdmz-ns-mip.qualcomm.com (HELO ithilien.qualcomm.com) ([199.106.114.10]) by wolverine02.qualcomm.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA; 03 Apr 2009 17:43:48 -0700 Received: from msgtransport03.qualcomm.com (msgtransport03.qualcomm.com [129.46.61.154]) by ithilien.qualcomm.com (8.14.2/8.14.2/1.0) with ESMTP id n340hmSa006814 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Fri, 3 Apr 2009 17:43:48 -0700 Received: from [10.50.72.132] (qconnect-10-50-72-132.qualcomm.com [10.50.72.132]) by msgtransport03.qualcomm.com (8.14.2/8.14.2/1.0) with ESMTP id n340hbRs020054 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Fri, 3 Apr 2009 17:43:44 -0700 Message-ID: <49D6AD38.2080406@qualcomm.com> Date: Sat, 04 Apr 2009 06:13:36 +0530 From: Lakshminath Dondeti User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.9.1b3pre) Gecko/20090223 Thunderbird/3.0b2 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Danny McPherson References: <20857.1238779239@erosen-linux> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: NomComDiscussion Discussion Subject: Re: [ietf-nomcom] "Lobbying" 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, 04 Apr 2009 00:43:14 -0000 On 4/4/2009 3:11 AM, Danny McPherson wrote: > On Apr 3, 2009, at 11:20 AM, Eric Rosen wrote: > >> Or perhaps it's better just to rely totally on a randomly selected >> group of >> people with no particular qualifications (aka nomcom) to figure this >> all out >> in the absence of substantive feedback. > > > [I started to not reply to this, and promise in advance I > won't contribute further to this piece of the thread - but > here it is anyway...] > > > Eric, > I don't see where you've even volunteered for a NomCom > since 2004, but had you been on a NomCom trudging through > the mountain of feedback they receive ( have, several times), > whether "substantive" or not (something which is largely > subjective), you might well take issue with that statement. > > I would also observe that those things you apparently > consider as put in place simply to make life difficult > certainly aren't sexy or fun for IETF leadership, but they're > not there because folks were bored either. Whether you like > it or not, they're there to protect you, the IETF, and > the larger Internet... Huh! One could easily make the counterargument that a change in procedures will preserve the IETF and heck even cure cancer, or at least heartburn! :) I have had the opportunity to see the "mountains" of information and they looked more like molehills in many cases. There were times where there was little to no information to help assist decision making. I can recall cases where one comment weighed far too much into decision making; granted, I haven't read minds, but it is telling when the entire discussion goes back to that one comment, and of course doing further research is hard since there is the worry of people being able to read into confidential discussions. Besides, there is enough public information out there that there hasn't been enough feedback and so forth. Now of course there were cases where there was a reasonable amount of information, but it is necessary to improve the number of such cases. best, Lakshminath > > -danny > > _______________________________________________ > ietf-nomcom mailing list > ietf-nomcom@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-nomcom > From lars.eggert@nokia.com Sat Apr 4 03:14:21 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 904ED3A6818 for ; Sat, 4 Apr 2009 03:14:21 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.559 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.559 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.040, 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 mEsPz5R1Qd8y for ; Sat, 4 Apr 2009 03:14:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.fit.nokia.com (unknown [IPv6:2001:2060:40:1::123]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 223F53A67D1 for ; Sat, 4 Apr 2009 03:14:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.0.199] (cs95200.pp.htv.fi [212.90.95.200]) (authenticated bits=0) by mail.fit.nokia.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id n34AFFX6079825 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT); Sat, 4 Apr 2009 13:15:16 +0300 (EEST) (envelope-from lars.eggert@nokia.com) Message-Id: From: Lars Eggert To: "Joel M. Halpern" In-Reply-To: <49D64A60.5060204@joelhalpern.com> Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary=Apple-Mail-54-687388880; micalg=sha1; protocol="application/pkcs7-signature" Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v930.3) Date: Sat, 4 Apr 2009 13:15:10 +0300 References: <9095EE5BC20C407BB9B043D6DA268B11@china.huawei.com> <2D6D09EF4262A274AF556633@eList-eXpress-LLC.local> <49D64A60.5060204@joelhalpern.com> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.930.3) X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.0.1 (mail.fit.nokia.com [195.148.124.194]); Sat, 04 Apr 2009 13:15:17 +0300 (EEST) Cc: NomCom Discussion , James M Galvin Subject: Re: [ietf-nomcom] Ringers / Padding on Nominee list 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, 04 Apr 2009 10:14:21 -0000 --Apple-Mail-54-687388880 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On 2009-4-3, at 20:41, Joel M. Halpern wrote: > I would actually include positions. Folks are skilled at different > things, and just as I want to avoid padding the list, I don't want > folks > trying to give the nomcom comments on whether a nominee would be good > for the IAOC when that is not what they are being considered for. +1 Lars --Apple-Mail-54-687388880 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=smime.p7s Content-Type: application/pkcs7-signature; name=smime.p7s Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 MIAGCSqGSIb3DQEHAqCAMIACAQExCzAJBgUrDgMCGgUAMIAGCSqGSIb3DQEHAQAAoIIGQDCCAvkw ggJioAMCAQICEEi7WbMMKa2GLKFpQDaOBQEwDQYJKoZIhvcNAQEFBQAwYjELMAkGA1UEBhMCWkEx JTAjBgNVBAoTHFRoYXd0ZSBDb25zdWx0aW5nIChQdHkpIEx0ZC4xLDAqBgNVBAMTI1RoYXd0ZSBQ ZXJzb25hbCBGcmVlbWFpbCBJc3N1aW5nIENBMB4XDTA4MDgyMzE3NDMzOVoXDTA5MDgyMzE3NDMz OVowXDEPMA0GA1UEBBMGRWdnZXJ0MQ0wCwYDVQQqEwRMYXJzMRQwEgYDVQQDEwtMYXJzIEVnZ2Vy dDEkMCIGCSqGSIb3DQEJARYVbGFycy5lZ2dlcnRAbm9raWEuY29tMIIBIjANBgkqhkiG9w0BAQEF AAOCAQ8AMIIBCgKCAQEAlwQVktJZCY89iU6jcW1XnZQN+aMgF2utCUT3H3ZKB5Jbet1SDWt0md/W 571bHjxtn9CfEJdochNL3l9f1WiJNdVbJ182557Ltx9SojqthpqtA0jKEqo2gqrf+raUj1demmo0 6ocsLqv046CrwidOp6k0RAfvkKPLhD4PD9Nk3oaZuxqBz1wY4u8Q83iWMArDeXiQxfNZnOBz5cDs VvVjTjitm3VANkbD02tNkwl5AHw7htde4yH8hIwlfzqsAtHBEah3HyOvs9b+gHg2pFz9eS+HuotY ZKycCweRs8NKXoCg+zAkVYi3zvZEH2VOuPlpMQMrB9+fLWg2UBsTeZ864wIDAQABozIwMDAgBgNV HREEGTAXgRVsYXJzLmVnZ2VydEBub2tpYS5jb20wDAYDVR0TAQH/BAIwADANBgkqhkiG9w0BAQUF AAOBgQBMdV2U+ryV5t3nuBFH19XKflodN6Bc60GBYHHY/Z0+Cl08Q75qzTt02IILBg+/YVh/fygb 6pFrOm1sFtLN7fENBfbO2VtpFjP2lGUgbXTVT5xGM6+MtqZiBI6LqexAeY6gsd/taoUfy9fZG42d ciBA9gSGlQjjWQyG8mb5HR8L9jCCAz8wggKooAMCAQICAQ0wDQYJKoZIhvcNAQEFBQAwgdExCzAJ BgNVBAYTAlpBMRUwEwYDVQQIEwxXZXN0ZXJuIENhcGUxEjAQBgNVBAcTCUNhcGUgVG93bjEaMBgG A1UEChMRVGhhd3RlIENvbnN1bHRpbmcxKDAmBgNVBAsTH0NlcnRpZmljYXRpb24gU2VydmljZXMg RGl2aXNpb24xJDAiBgNVBAMTG1RoYXd0ZSBQZXJzb25hbCBGcmVlbWFpbCBDQTErMCkGCSqGSIb3 DQEJARYccGVyc29uYWwtZnJlZW1haWxAdGhhd3RlLmNvbTAeFw0wMzA3MTcwMDAwMDBaFw0xMzA3 MTYyMzU5NTlaMGIxCzAJBgNVBAYTAlpBMSUwIwYDVQQKExxUaGF3dGUgQ29uc3VsdGluZyAoUHR5 KSBMdGQuMSwwKgYDVQQDEyNUaGF3dGUgUGVyc29uYWwgRnJlZW1haWwgSXNzdWluZyBDQTCBnzAN BgkqhkiG9w0BAQEFAAOBjQAwgYkCgYEAxKY8VXNV+065yplaHmjAdQRwnd/p/6Me7L3N9VvyGna9 fww6YfK/Uc4B1OVQCjDXAmNaLIkVcI7dyfArhVqqP3FWy688Cwfn8R+RNiQqE88r1fOCdz0Dviv+ uxg+B79AgAJk16emu59l0cUqVIUPSAR/p7bRPGEEQB5kGXJgt/sCAwEAAaOBlDCBkTASBgNVHRMB Af8ECDAGAQH/AgEAMEMGA1UdHwQ8MDowOKA2oDSGMmh0dHA6Ly9jcmwudGhhd3RlLmNvbS9UaGF3 dGVQZXJzb25hbEZyZWVtYWlsQ0EuY3JsMAsGA1UdDwQEAwIBBjApBgNVHREEIjAgpB4wHDEaMBgG A1UEAxMRUHJpdmF0ZUxhYmVsMi0xMzgwDQYJKoZIhvcNAQEFBQADgYEASIzRUIPqCy7MDaNmrGcP f6+svsIXoUOWlJ1/TCG4+DYfqi2fNi/A9BxQIJNwPP2t4WFiw9k6GX6EsZkbAMUaC4J0niVQlGLH 2ydxVyWN3amcOY6MIE9lX5Xa9/eH1sYITq726jTlEBpbNU1341YheILcIRk13iSx0x1G/11fZU8x ggMQMIIDDAIBATB2MGIxCzAJBgNVBAYTAlpBMSUwIwYDVQQKExxUaGF3dGUgQ29uc3VsdGluZyAo UHR5KSBMdGQuMSwwKgYDVQQDEyNUaGF3dGUgUGVyc29uYWwgRnJlZW1haWwgSXNzdWluZyBDQQIQ SLtZswwprYYsoWlANo4FATAJBgUrDgMCGgUAoIIBbzAYBgkqhkiG9w0BCQMxCwYJKoZIhvcNAQcB MBwGCSqGSIb3DQEJBTEPFw0wOTA0MDQxMDE1MTBaMCMGCSqGSIb3DQEJBDEWBBSp6NkyiMR6WMAS qHhFazFFdQWnpTCBhQYJKwYBBAGCNxAEMXgwdjBiMQswCQYDVQQGEwJaQTElMCMGA1UEChMcVGhh d3RlIENvbnN1bHRpbmcgKFB0eSkgTHRkLjEsMCoGA1UEAxMjVGhhd3RlIFBlcnNvbmFsIEZyZWVt YWlsIElzc3VpbmcgQ0ECEEi7WbMMKa2GLKFpQDaOBQEwgYcGCyqGSIb3DQEJEAILMXigdjBiMQsw CQYDVQQGEwJaQTElMCMGA1UEChMcVGhhd3RlIENvbnN1bHRpbmcgKFB0eSkgTHRkLjEsMCoGA1UE AxMjVGhhd3RlIFBlcnNvbmFsIEZyZWVtYWlsIElzc3VpbmcgQ0ECEEi7WbMMKa2GLKFpQDaOBQEw DQYJKoZIhvcNAQEBBQAEggEAS+/vdkSztlcRtXRuMG/329/HoJoQ4xhc1IYP3f/1mu7Q7jvkbRRP opLLsc5Mpjm6galQpCz/MqhfDznxAOMR0b8RrXzi6b0EsylayCTEZAHunvEeGommykJwmT67n6Gk aL4nQ+Fwtcm9ad59avkVuFOS5hg9FrFBSUBI2yGDaJuFGmVk3uJWjHxCw047r9zVkM1o/rhPXKfM /zZcVmFKcXQbndy9ZBoT7Zp9I5+yixoAsB1an4TCGoKzxBd8AUj1oS0kXe+HVt4+4/VDGWHSlx3J ICiWh2khSf91UD3EapRO7gercxkgX6ca7+ReOe48A10xlmcBRcn7naznSlgF0AAAAAAAAA== --Apple-Mail-54-687388880-- From barryleiba.mailing.lists@gmail.com Sat Apr 4 07:42:16 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 178273A69B9 for ; Sat, 4 Apr 2009 07:42:16 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.191 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.191 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.214, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622] 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 XpAsuSRNziwE for ; Sat, 4 Apr 2009 07:42:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-bw0-f169.google.com (mail-bw0-f169.google.com [209.85.218.169]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2B01C3A6888 for ; Sat, 4 Apr 2009 07:42:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: by bwz17 with SMTP id 17so1309088bwz.37 for ; Sat, 04 Apr 2009 07:43:18 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:sender:received:in-reply-to :references:date:x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=68WY/kLl7tcwVh0UGoRC+72oHqnhzGAFiJ3D80I4MFo=; b=v+8MAtfWjkKJkeNXvKOVZkAaeQnJUqhNorhGRE2uOw0/5yiKpmSAM1tuVyEqf6XIbF NnhTKf7uG/Obcfgm5L65/cTl6tcHcqYwQ3zfIWpHjbhMiez7hVrR4AU3xEjDERlkhWRP FcnGI4sTJhnnRg36hocov2dtrLBZiy1d8GvP4= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; b=WKFBEVWV3NobQM81Vz+ng8l2JLROOOOXQ9colYY7wK1XeXQYOhBjZDHfHIcuRFZITD 40leLoVLsZmWoGhbppOd79C8b9TjCa8ZeB6Gpf/+JxEs+XwktkUjLBtWm2G3Rqnq0+oc fzNQzMosqFlvi/cySAE+T35MFnLHLPE524rQs= MIME-Version: 1.0 Sender: barryleiba.mailing.lists@gmail.com Received: by 10.103.92.8 with SMTP id u8mr1103425mul.34.1238856198001; Sat, 04 Apr 2009 07:43:18 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <9095EE5BC20C407BB9B043D6DA268B11@china.huawei.com> <2D6D09EF4262A274AF556633@eList-eXpress-LLC.local> <49D64A60.5060204@joelhalpern.com> Date: Sat, 4 Apr 2009 10:43:17 -0400 X-Google-Sender-Auth: e4094e4c831b2aa7 Message-ID: <6c9fcc2a0904040743y7c5fb5f2q61b5b73593a4a359@mail.gmail.com> From: Barry Leiba To: NomCom Discussion Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [ietf-nomcom] Ringers / Padding on Nominee list 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, 04 Apr 2009 14:42:16 -0000 I completely agree with Joel. And I'll add, in response to Bernie's comment about padding the list when there are too few nominees, that it can have the opposite effect to what we want: people who like the "ringers" might decide they don't need to volunteer, because there appear to be enough good candidates. Barry From brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com Sat Apr 4 16:14:06 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 643C43A6821 for ; Sat, 4 Apr 2009 16:14:06 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.418 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.418 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.181, 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 qdiYlFZO+qsL for ; Sat, 4 Apr 2009 16:14:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ti-out-0910.google.com (ti-out-0910.google.com [209.85.142.188]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 79C083A67B6 for ; Sat, 4 Apr 2009 16:14:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: by ti-out-0910.google.com with SMTP id j3so1468963tid.25 for ; Sat, 04 Apr 2009 16:15:08 -0700 (PDT) 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=bA4hPHpReepnsGE1bZAkQ03jYVbPFAVtLt6r3RfBlGQ=; b=CiT51f31V8wWxIGLEV8FF6K5omFvLFeg5Na+5xD0+uplZxaKdNEnNnpnA2xuZCNU6p RhlHbhZStAJwWY1A7J5jw9Q3Xb3CM2M+svaDPm4r8YAEX7qx2PXM4PA6LZTVrUp1B9CC jK607Tyu1fu7mdKJrPuCtnEA6dkJwHSm7ChHM= 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=GiL6Pur9fefzypE2uEgEEGzuLaJMps6D9Jg1dY4j/w6JaPv9uettHL0m/1acma/SyQ vUKSSpvBPqxkKwZVXgR6A1e78TuLAIODQCCN9/V5tG4pmApgt0pyUAt7K9jakDEvHxYh 0Y2xNMBF9+eCXYaibBFL6jzBs4NMpZURgxl7M= Received: by 10.110.57.5 with SMTP id f5mr3957946tia.19.1238886908221; Sat, 04 Apr 2009 16:15:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ?10.1.1.4? (118-93-76-54.dsl.dyn.ihug.co.nz [118.93.76.54]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id w5sm1852771tib.25.2009.04.04.16.15.05 (version=SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Sat, 04 Apr 2009 16:15:07 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <49D7E9EF.7030506@gmail.com> Date: Sun, 05 Apr 2009 11:14:55 +1200 From: Brian E Carpenter Organization: University of Auckland User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.6 (Windows/20070728) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Joel M. Halpern" References: <9095EE5BC20C407BB9B043D6DA268B11@china.huawei.com> <2D6D09EF4262A274AF556633@eList-eXpress-LLC.local> <49D64A60.5060204@joelhalpern.com> In-Reply-To: <49D64A60.5060204@joelhalpern.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: NomCom Discussion , James M Galvin Subject: Re: [ietf-nomcom] Ringers / Padding on Nominee list 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, 04 Apr 2009 23:14:06 -0000 On 2009-04-04 06:41, Joel M. Halpern wrote: > I agree that simply keeping the current list of nominees available is > the simplest and most effective technique. (THere may be an argument > for delaying the initial availability of the lsit by a few days, but > that is a nit.) +1 Add to that, firm dates for a) initial publication of the list b) a real final deadline for nominations c) a real final deadline for 'willing to serve' responses from nominees No more ringers, ever, please. If there are only one or two willing nominees, so be it. Brian From jmh@joelhalpern.com Sat Apr 4 21:08:26 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 5B3023A6AB1 for ; Sat, 4 Apr 2009 21:08:26 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.232 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.232 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.133, BAYES_00=-2.599, GB_PAYLESS=0.5, 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 U2OxK0pWRBx9 for ; Sat, 4 Apr 2009 21:08:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.mail.tigertech.net (hermes.mail.tigertech.net [64.62.209.72]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0035D3A6838 for ; Sat, 4 Apr 2009 21:08:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hermes.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id A350443068C; Sat, 4 Apr 2009 21:09:28 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at hermes.tigertech.net Received: from [10.10.10.100] (pool-71-161-52-88.clppva.btas.verizon.net [71.161.52.88]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by hermes.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id A632543068B; Sat, 4 Apr 2009 21:09:27 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <49D82EF1.9090108@joelhalpern.com> Date: Sun, 05 Apr 2009 00:09:21 -0400 From: "Joel M. Halpern" User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.21 (Windows/20090302) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Brian E Carpenter References: <9095EE5BC20C407BB9B043D6DA268B11@china.huawei.com> <2D6D09EF4262A274AF556633@eList-eXpress-LLC.local> <49D64A60.5060204@joelhalpern.com> <49D7E9EF.7030506@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <49D7E9EF.7030506@gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: NomCom Discussion , James M Galvin Subject: Re: [ietf-nomcom] Ringers / Padding on Nominee list 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, 05 Apr 2009 04:08:26 -0000 There is a problem with a real firm deadline for nominations. Things go wrong. In absurd ways. The nomcom has been known in the past to decide that they did not like the alternatives on the table, and they went out and got someone else they liked better. They are not going to determine that before the deadline. Do we really want to take that away from them? And on the "willing to serve" deadline, reality creates the issue there. There person may be willing to serve. There management may have been willing to support them. And them something changes. Outside of the IETF purview. We don't get to tell companies how to manage their budgets. So no matter how strict we make the willingness test, at the point of finalizing everything it has to be rechecked. At the same time, when there is still a large pool being considered people really can not go to their management and say "make this work for me." Even if their manager does so, if the nomcom turns them down they have used up at least good will, and sometimes more than that. We have to be very careful about where we place those roadblocks. Declaring that there is a date after which the nomcom is likely to pay less attention to new nominees is useful. Declaring that the nomcom can not bend that is harmful. Yours, Joel Brian E Carpenter wrote: > On 2009-04-04 06:41, Joel M. Halpern wrote: >> I agree that simply keeping the current list of nominees available is >> the simplest and most effective technique. (THere may be an argument >> for delaying the initial availability of the lsit by a few days, but >> that is a nit.) > > +1 > > Add to that, firm dates for > > a) initial publication of the list > b) a real final deadline for nominations > c) a real final deadline for 'willing to serve' responses from nominees > > No more ringers, ever, please. If there are only one or two > willing nominees, so be it. > > Brian > _______________________________________________ > ietf-nomcom mailing list > ietf-nomcom@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-nomcom > From galvin@elistx.com Sun Apr 5 06:57:35 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 5FAEE3A6B37 for ; Sun, 5 Apr 2009 06:57:35 -0700 (PDT) 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 x7bxLk+Fm3jH for ; Sun, 5 Apr 2009 06:57:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ee01.elistx.com (ee01.elistx.com [67.154.239.222]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 887803A6B0C for ; Sun, 5 Apr 2009 06:57:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by elistx.com (PMDF V6.3-2x2 #31546) with ESMTP id <0KHM00L8YS1QD9@elistx.com> for ietf-nomcom@ietf.org; Sun, 05 Apr 2009 09:56:14 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sun, 05 Apr 2009 10:00:10 -0400 From: James M Galvin In-reply-to: To: Spencer Dawkins , ietf-nomcom@ietf.org Message-id: <4DB48A98040A7F85FC7609B8@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> 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, 05 Apr 2009 13:57:35 -0000 I'm supportive of changing the "rules" to allow some of the more administrative tasks to be taken over by the Secretariat, in principle. However, I have two concerns with this proposed change. First, I think we need to state explicitly how far the process can go without a NOMCOM chair. This could be as simple as simply stating explicitly that the Secretariat can only do what is stated and that the process does not really start until the Chair is named and in place. More elaborate options are possible but I'm more in favor of keeping it simple and stating less. Second, I can not think of any reason not to include the IAOC in this change. Since one of the changes to this document was to include the IAOC along with the IAB and IESG, why exclude them from this step? If we're really going to do that then we need to state why. Jim -- On March 3, 2009 4:19:33 PM -0600 Spencer Dawkins wrote regarding Re: [ietf-nomcom] past nomcom chair starting next process -- > Just to let people know - Russ thought this was a good suggested > change, so I've submitted an 01 version of the draft (at > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-dawkins-nomcom-dont-wait-01 > .txt) that now assigns the responsibility to the IETF Secretariat. > > Thanks for your feedback, > > Spencer > > > 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 > > > _______________________________________________ > ietf-nomcom mailing list > ietf-nomcom@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-nomcom From galvin+ietf@elistx.com Sun Apr 5 07:09:19 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 6A47F3A6919 for ; Sun, 5 Apr 2009 07:09:19 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -100.965 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-100.965 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.300, BAYES_50=0.001, 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 co7Tp-aKKm63 for ; Sun, 5 Apr 2009 07:09:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ee01.elistx.com (ee01.elistx.com [67.154.239.222]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C1BDE3A69FC for ; Sun, 5 Apr 2009 07:09:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by elistx.com (PMDF V6.3-2x2 #31546) with ESMTP id <0KHM00LELSL5JF@elistx.com> for ietf-nomcom@ietf.org; Sun, 05 Apr 2009 10:07:54 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sun, 05 Apr 2009 10:11:49 -0400 From: James Galvin In-reply-to: To: 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: Subject: Re: [ietf-nomcom] draft-galvin-rfc3777bis-00 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, 05 Apr 2009 14:09:19 -0000 There has been no discussion of this issue so, for completeness, I want to make sure that is intentional. Speaking as editor of the document, the historical process has been that we don't update the document unless there is overwhelming consensus to change it, which requires discussion. Speaking personally, I'm in favor of clearing up the ambiguity John mentions below, so the question becomes which way to go with it. Although the prevailing wisdom has been the ISOC BOT, IAOC, IAB, and IESG can not participate in recall petitions, I think this is wrong. I agree with John that this ambiguity should be changed in favor of allowing sitting members to support and participate in recall petitions. What do others think? Jim -- On March 8, 2009 11:05:19 AM -0400 John C Klensin wrote regarding draft-galvin-rfc3777bis-00 -- > Jim, > > At the time the recall procedures were changed to require many > signatures on petitions, they were also changed to make the > requirement for signatures nomcom-eligibility. The specific > text, from Section 7, now reads: > > > 1. At any time, at least 20 members of the IETF community, > > who are qualified to be voting members of a nominating > > committee, may request by signed petition (email is > > acceptable) to the Internet Society President the > > recall of any sitting of a body with members to which > > this document applies. > > > > All individual and collective qualifications of > > nominating committee eligibility are applicable, > > including that no more than two signatories may have > > the same primary affiliation. > > ... > > There is actually an ambiguity in this statement, at least in > your current draft. One way to read the draft is that, because > > > "15. Members of the Internet Society Board of Trustees, > > sitting members of IAOC, sitting members of the IAB, and > > sitting members of the IESG may not volunteer to serve on the > > nominating committee." > > (from Section 4) that they are not "qualified" and hence cannot > participate in recall petitions. The statement above can also > be read as indicating that those people are "qualified" to > volunteer if they meet all of the other requirements, they are > just prohibited from actually volunteering. With the second > reading, they could participate. My understanding is that the > prevailing reading of 3777 has been that they are not permitted > to participate in recall petitions. > > That had a side-effect that many of us believe to have been > unintentional, a view that is reinforced by the ambiguity > mentioned above, namely the disqualification of members of the > IAB, IESG, and IAOC from sponsoring recall petitions. Whether > it was intentional or not, there are at least two significant > reasons why the leadership folks should be able to sign > petitions and even initiate them: > > -- If there is really a serious problem within one of > those groups, the members of that group, and perhaps > members of others, are the ones best positioned to > understand the nature of the problem and, if it is > actually due to the consistent behavior of an > individual, to identify that fact and the individual > involved. Under the same circumstances, the broader > community might well see only a "this isn't working at > all well" situation. > > -- The converse of that need for an internal perspective > is that, if the petitioners cannot get a single member > of the relevant body to stand up and say, "yes, she is > the problem and we haven't been able to fix it", that > may be important information for others considering > signing the petition and/or for the recall committee. > > When this has been discussed before, the argument has been made > that preventing IAB, IESG, or IAOC members from signing recall > petitions prevents vendettas within those bodies from exploding > into recalls. I believe that concern is unreasonable and > unfounded. We had many years when IAB and IESG members were > permitted to initiate recalls. None ever did, despite, in > retrospect, one or two cases when they should have. In > addition, the pressures within those groups to not break harmony > and start publicly pointing fingers at one of the members are > immense and it still takes 20 signatures (more than the > membership of any of those bodies). If someone decides that > initiating a recall is needed, then the community needs to hear > about it and hear about it directly (rather than having IAB, > IESG, or IAOC members recruiting others in private to initiate a > recall without even the option of speaking out themselves. > Whispering campaigns are never of benefit to the IETF. > > My hope is that you and others will be sufficiently sympathetic > to the position described above to include it in your draft. If > not, I'd dust off my ancient draft on the subject and post it so > we can have a separate discussion on the issue. But, in any > event, the ambiguity should be fixed -- we clearly do not need a > situation in which, were a recall petition to start being > circulated, there would be controversy about who can sign it. > > john > > > From housley@vigilsec.com Sun Apr 5 09:15:46 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 57F563A6923 for ; Sun, 5 Apr 2009 09:15:46 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.396 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.396 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.203, 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 htj9yN7wZNTu for ; Sun, 5 Apr 2009 09:15:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: from odin.smetech.net (mail.smetech.net [208.254.26.82]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 584563A689E for ; Sun, 5 Apr 2009 09:15:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (unknown [208.254.26.81]) by odin.smetech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 15C469A4725 for ; Sun, 5 Apr 2009 12:16:53 -0400 (EDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at smetech.net Received: from odin.smetech.net ([208.254.26.82]) by localhost (ronin.smetech.net [208.254.26.81]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id BDmCjvX7xBiB for ; Sun, 5 Apr 2009 12:16:45 -0400 (EDT) Received: from THINKPADR52.vigilsec.com (pool-71-191-197-15.washdc.fios.verizon.net [71.191.197.15]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by odin.smetech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id F24819A4721 for ; Sun, 5 Apr 2009 12:16:47 -0400 (EDT) X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.1.0.9 Date: Sun, 05 Apr 2009 12:16:44 -0400 To: NomCom Discussion From: Russ Housley Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Message-Id: <20090405161647.F24819A4721@odin.smetech.net> Subject: [ietf-nomcom] Guidance on the liaison role 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, 05 Apr 2009 16:15:46 -0000 One message that cam through very clearly at plenary was that the community wanted clarity on the role of the liaisons the ISOC BoT, IAB, IESG, and possibly in the future from the IAOC. This has been a topic of much debate in the past. The IESG decided to address it for their own liaison by drafting instructions to their liaison before the NomCom was seated. The IESG plans to do the same again this year. The IESG shared these instructions openly. The idea was simple, if everyone knows the instructions, then any attempt to participate in a manner that goes too far will be obvious to all NomCom members. So, to get the discussion going, I'm posting the instructions that the IESG gave to the liaison to the current NomCom. Russ = = = = = = = = = = These apply when the liaison is speaking to NomCom in his liaison role. The person who fills the liaison role may also provide personal feedback to NomCom but only through communication channels available to general IETF participants (e.g. the feedback web form). When interacting with the NomCom through liaison channels, the liaison will represent the views of the IESG rather than personal opinion. We came up with 4 guidelines and 1 meta-guideline: 1. Neutrality test. When the Liaison is speaking to NomCom in his liaison role it should not be possible for the NomCom to determine the Liaison's personal opinion about a particular candidate, based on statements by the Liaison. This involves sticking to facts and avoiding personal opinions. 2. Follow NomCom Liaison Rules in RFC 3777, which includes: Liaisons are expected to represent the views of their respective organizations during the deliberations of the committee. They should provide information as requested or when they believe it would be helpful to the committee. 3. Act in the best interest of the IETF. 4. The IESG doesn't want to be a self-selecting body, so the liaison should take care to avoid actions that might produce such a result. Meta-guideline: When any of the four guidelines are in conflict, the liaison will use his best judgment to resolve the conflict. Guideline 1 should override guideline 3 when they are in conflict. From jmh@joelhalpern.com Sun Apr 5 09:25:14 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 3F8CF3A6A70 for ; Sun, 5 Apr 2009 09:25:14 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.48 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.48 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.119, 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 yj3EHgP7tHoA for ; Sun, 5 Apr 2009 09:25:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.mail.tigertech.net (hermes.mail.tigertech.net [64.62.209.72]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D585C3A697B for ; Sun, 5 Apr 2009 09:25:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hermes.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2E3F6430326; Sun, 5 Apr 2009 09:26:18 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at hermes.tigertech.net Received: from [10.10.10.100] (pool-71-161-52-88.clppva.btas.verizon.net [71.161.52.88]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by hermes.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7CB46430324; Sun, 5 Apr 2009 09:26:17 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <49D8DBA3.5020402@joelhalpern.com> Date: Sun, 05 Apr 2009 12:26:11 -0400 From: "Joel M. Halpern" User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.21 (Windows/20090302) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Russ Housley References: <20090405161647.F24819A4721@odin.smetech.net> In-Reply-To: <20090405161647.F24819A4721@odin.smetech.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: NomCom Discussion Subject: Re: [ietf-nomcom] Guidance on the liaison role 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, 05 Apr 2009 16:25:14 -0000 There are two points taht I would (and did) add. A) The Liaison is permitted to provide factual information for nomcom discussions that the liaison believes will help those discussions. This goes beyond just answering questions, as sometimes the nomcom will not realize there are questions it needs to ask. B) The liaison is encouraged to use the input tools to provide personal input to the nomcom. Yours, Joel Russ Housley wrote: > One message that cam through very clearly at plenary was that the > community wanted clarity on the role of the liaisons the ISOC BoT, IAB, > IESG, and possibly in the future from the IAOC. > > This has been a topic of much debate in the past. The IESG decided to > address it for their own liaison by drafting instructions to their > liaison before the NomCom was seated. The IESG plans to do the same > again this year. The IESG shared these instructions openly. The idea > was simple, if everyone knows the instructions, then any attempt to > participate in a manner that goes too far will be obvious to all NomCom > members. > > So, to get the discussion going, I'm posting the instructions that the > IESG gave to the liaison to the current NomCom. > > Russ > > = = = = = = = = = = > > These apply when the liaison is speaking to NomCom in his liaison role. > The person who fills the liaison role may also provide personal feedback > to NomCom but only through communication channels available to general > IETF participants (e.g. the feedback web form). When interacting with > the NomCom through liaison channels, the liaison will represent the > views of the IESG rather than personal opinion. > > We came up with 4 guidelines and 1 meta-guideline: > > 1. Neutrality test. When the Liaison is speaking to NomCom in his > liaison role it should not be possible for the NomCom to determine > the Liaison's personal opinion about a particular candidate, based > on statements by the Liaison. This involves sticking to facts and > avoiding personal opinions. > > 2. Follow NomCom Liaison Rules in RFC 3777, which includes: > > Liaisons are expected to represent the views of their respective > organizations during the deliberations of the committee. They > should provide information as requested or when they believe it > would be helpful to the committee. > > 3. Act in the best interest of the IETF. > > 4. The IESG doesn't want to be a self-selecting body, so the liaison > should take care to avoid actions that might produce such a result. > > Meta-guideline: > > When any of the four guidelines are in conflict, the liaison will use > his best judgment to resolve the conflict. Guideline 1 should override > guideline 3 when they are in conflict. > > _______________________________________________ > ietf-nomcom mailing list > ietf-nomcom@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-nomcom > From housley@vigilsec.com Sun Apr 5 09:35:25 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 46DD43A6923 for ; Sun, 5 Apr 2009 09:35:25 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.405 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.405 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.194, 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 N97unoQwW16C for ; Sun, 5 Apr 2009 09:35:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: from odin.smetech.net (mail.smetech.net [208.254.26.82]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 556593A6A2B for ; Sun, 5 Apr 2009 09:35:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (unknown [208.254.26.81]) by odin.smetech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0FFBB9A4725; Sun, 5 Apr 2009 12:36:38 -0400 (EDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at smetech.net Received: from odin.smetech.net ([208.254.26.82]) by localhost (ronin.smetech.net [208.254.26.81]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id MQd2+fHZJXFd; Sun, 5 Apr 2009 12:36:27 -0400 (EDT) Received: from THINKPADR52.vigilsec.com (pool-71-191-197-15.washdc.fios.verizon.net [71.191.197.15]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by odin.smetech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id A7CED9A4778; Sun, 5 Apr 2009 12:36:36 -0400 (EDT) X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.1.0.9 Date: Sun, 05 Apr 2009 12:36:21 -0400 To: "Joel M. Halpern" From: Russ Housley In-Reply-To: <49D8DBA3.5020402@joelhalpern.com> References: <20090405161647.F24819A4721@odin.smetech.net> <49D8DBA3.5020402@joelhalpern.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Message-Id: <20090405163636.A7CED9A4778@odin.smetech.net> Cc: NomCom Discussion Subject: Re: [ietf-nomcom] Guidance on the liaison role 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, 05 Apr 2009 16:35:25 -0000 Joel: >There are two points taht I would (and did) add. >A) The Liaison is permitted to provide factual information for >nomcom discussions that the liaison believes will help those >discussions. This goes beyond just answering questions, as sometimes >the nomcom will not realize there are questions it needs to ask. I think that is allowed and encouraged under guideline #2. >B) The liaison is encouraged to use the input tools to provide >personal input to the nomcom. I think that is covered in the introduction paragraph, but it is not in a numbered guideline. It appears that the NomCom Chair and the (past) IESG are in sync here. Russ >Russ Housley wrote: >>One message that cam through very clearly at plenary was that the >>community wanted clarity on the role of the liaisons the ISOC BoT, >>IAB, IESG, and possibly in the future from the IAOC. >>This has been a topic of much debate in the past. The IESG decided >>to address it for their own liaison by drafting instructions to >>their liaison before the NomCom was seated. The IESG plans to do >>the same again this year. The IESG shared these instructions >>openly. The idea was simple, if everyone knows the instructions, >>then any attempt to participate in a manner that goes too far will >>be obvious to all NomCom members. >>So, to get the discussion going, I'm posting the instructions that >>the IESG gave to the liaison to the current NomCom. >>Russ >>= = = = = = = = = = >>These apply when the liaison is speaking to NomCom in his liaison role. >>The person who fills the liaison role may also provide personal feedback >>to NomCom but only through communication channels available to general >>IETF participants (e.g. the feedback web form). When interacting with >>the NomCom through liaison channels, the liaison will represent the >>views of the IESG rather than personal opinion. >>We came up with 4 guidelines and 1 meta-guideline: >>1. Neutrality test. When the Liaison is speaking to NomCom in his >> liaison role it should not be possible for the NomCom to determine >> the Liaison's personal opinion about a particular candidate, based >> on statements by the Liaison. This involves sticking to facts and >> avoiding personal opinions. >>2. Follow NomCom Liaison Rules in RFC 3777, which includes: >> Liaisons are expected to represent the views of their respective >> organizations during the deliberations of the committee. They >> should provide information as requested or when they believe it >> would be helpful to the committee. >>3. Act in the best interest of the IETF. >>4. The IESG doesn't want to be a self-selecting body, so the liaison >> should take care to avoid actions that might produce such a result. >>Meta-guideline: >>When any of the four guidelines are in conflict, the liaison will use >>his best judgment to resolve the conflict. Guideline 1 should override >>guideline 3 when they are in conflict. From housley@vigilsec.com Sun Apr 5 09:43:43 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 901D83A6A70 for ; Sun, 5 Apr 2009 09:43:43 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.409 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.409 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.190, 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 xcudbvRd10cG for ; Sun, 5 Apr 2009 09:43:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: from odin.smetech.net (mail.smetech.net [208.254.26.82]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A05BD3A6895 for ; Sun, 5 Apr 2009 09:43:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (unknown [208.254.26.81]) by odin.smetech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 96BF79A4721; Sun, 5 Apr 2009 12:28:17 -0400 (EDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at smetech.net Received: from odin.smetech.net ([208.254.26.82]) by localhost (ronin.smetech.net [208.254.26.81]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id oPPRxQMRIwia; Sun, 5 Apr 2009 12:28:09 -0400 (EDT) Received: from THINKPADR52.vigilsec.com (pool-71-191-197-15.washdc.fios.verizon.net [71.191.197.15]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by odin.smetech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id B41BD9A4725; Sun, 5 Apr 2009 12:28:15 -0400 (EDT) X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.1.0.9 Date: Sun, 05 Apr 2009 12:28:08 -0400 To: James M Galvin , Spencer Dawkins ,ietf-nomcom@ietf.org From: Russ Housley In-Reply-To: <4DB48A98040A7F85FC7609B8@eList-eXpress-LLC.local> References: <20090220174517.76C3913B906E@newdev.eecs.harvard.edu> <4DB48A98040A7F85FC7609B8@eList-eXpress-LLC.local> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Message-Id: <20090405162815.B41BD9A4725@odin.smetech.net> 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, 05 Apr 2009 16:43:43 -0000 In plenary I heard some of these same concerns. I got the impression that people were supportive of the Secretariat taking actions that involve no judgment. It seems to me that the call for people willing to serve on NomCom is a very reasonable thing for the Secretariat to do. Under the current system, the volunteers contact the NomCom Chair who passes the name to the Secretariat to determine if they are qualified, and then the names are passed back to the NomCom Chair. It seems much simpler for the Secretariat to make the call and at the end of the 30 days provide a list of the qualified volunteers to the NomCom Chair. This approach provides several additional weeks to locate a NomCom chair. Hopefully these weeks are not needed, but we have seen at least one case where the time is needed. Russ At 10:00 AM 4/5/2009, James M Galvin wrote: >I'm supportive of changing the "rules" to allow some of the more >administrative tasks to be taken over by the Secretariat, in >principle. However, I have two concerns with this proposed change. > >First, I think we need to state explicitly how far the process can >go without a NOMCOM chair. This could be as simple as simply >stating explicitly that the Secretariat can only do what is stated >and that the process does not really start until the Chair is named >and in place. More elaborate options are possible but I'm more in >favor of keeping it simple and stating less. > >Second, I can not think of any reason not to include the IAOC in >this change. Since one of the changes to this document was to >include the IAOC along with the IAB and IESG, why exclude them from >this step? If we're really going to do that then we need to state why. > >Jim > > > > > >-- On March 3, 2009 4:19:33 PM -0600 Spencer Dawkins > wrote regarding Re: [ietf-nomcom] past >nomcom chair starting next process -- > >>Just to let people know - Russ thought this was a good suggested >>change, so I've submitted an 01 version of the draft (at >>http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-dawkins-nomcom-dont-wait-01 >>.txt) that now assigns the responsibility to the IETF Secretariat. >> >>Thanks for your feedback, >> >>Spencer >> >> > 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 >> >> >>_______________________________________________ >>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 stbryant@cisco.com Sun Apr 5 11:57:50 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 0F08E3A6B98 for ; Sun, 5 Apr 2009 11:57:50 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -7.572 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.572 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.973, 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 J+nXlgGnncqe for ; Sun, 5 Apr 2009 11:57:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sj-iport-3.cisco.com (sj-iport-3.cisco.com [171.71.176.72]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E55B23A68C9 for ; Sun, 5 Apr 2009 11:57:48 -0700 (PDT) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.39,326,1235952000"; d="scan'208";a="150483502" Received: from ams-dkim-2.cisco.com ([144.254.224.139]) by sj-iport-3.cisco.com with ESMTP; 05 Apr 2009 18:58:53 +0000 Received: from ams-core-1.cisco.com (ams-core-1.cisco.com [144.254.224.150]) by ams-dkim-2.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id n35IwlXW005194; Sun, 5 Apr 2009 20:58:47 +0200 Received: from cisco.com (mrwint.cisco.com [64.103.71.48]) by ams-core-1.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id n35IwlkM021702; Sun, 5 Apr 2009 18:58:47 GMT Received: from Stewarts-Computer.local (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by cisco.com (8.11.7p3+Sun/8.8.8) with ESMTP id n35Iwj111002; Sun, 5 Apr 2009 19:58:46 +0100 (BST) Message-ID: <49D8FF64.9040402@cisco.com> Date: Sun, 05 Apr 2009 19:58:44 +0100 From: Stewart Bryant User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.19 (Macintosh/20081209) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Russ Housley References: <20090220174517.76C3913B906E@newdev.eecs.harvard.edu> <4DB48A98040A7F85FC7609B8@eList-eXpress-LLC.local> <20090405162815.B41BD9A4725@odin.smetech.net> In-Reply-To: <20090405162815.B41BD9A4725@odin.smetech.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; l=3720; t=1238957927; x=1239821927; c=relaxed/simple; s=amsdkim2001; h=Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; d=cisco.com; i=stbryant@cisco.com; z=From:=20Stewart=20Bryant=20 |Subject:=20Re=3A=20[ietf-nomcom]=20past=20nomcom=20chair=2 0starting=20next=20process |Sender:=20; bh=/XAx7lWyny7SAIVs5LKCPRJZzXaHc2zunqHber4Rek4=; b=Xov8VwmAKmVMf/aUX6XLcjgii3DvCg4WmGnjRbzEL6W0RTZ7at8JQam88n fENSq6SWpfJgG3FUGQFZvzF79hyNjzC721/Y2EAKsUBiLfqpS71+ikz4109Y 6vVe78wkw9; Authentication-Results: ams-dkim-2; header.From=stbryant@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/amsdkim2001 verified; ); Cc: ietf-nomcom@ietf.org, James M Galvin Subject: Re: [ietf-nomcom] past nomcom chair starting next process X-BeenThere: ietf-nomcom@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list Reply-To: stbryant@cisco.com 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, 05 Apr 2009 18:57:50 -0000 It would also be reasonable for the outgoing Nomcom chair to provide the the Secretariat with the RNG seeds and take any judgmental actions until the appointment of the incoming chair. In other words transfer all the initial duties of the nomcom chair to a combination of the outgoing Chair and the Secretariat with all mechanical duties being conducted by the Secretariat. Stewart Russ Housley wrote: > In plenary I heard some of these same concerns. I got the impression > that people were supportive of the Secretariat taking actions that > involve no judgment. > > It seems to me that the call for people willing to serve on NomCom is > a very reasonable thing for the Secretariat to do. Under the current > system, the volunteers contact the NomCom Chair who passes the name to > the Secretariat to determine if they are qualified, and then the names > are passed back to the NomCom Chair. It seems much simpler for the > Secretariat to make the call and at the end of the 30 days provide a > list of the qualified volunteers to the NomCom Chair. > > This approach provides several additional weeks to locate a NomCom > chair. Hopefully these weeks are not needed, but we have seen at > least one case where the time is needed. > > Russ > > At 10:00 AM 4/5/2009, James M Galvin wrote: >> I'm supportive of changing the "rules" to allow some of the more >> administrative tasks to be taken over by the Secretariat, in >> principle. However, I have two concerns with this proposed change. >> >> First, I think we need to state explicitly how far the process can go >> without a NOMCOM chair. This could be as simple as simply stating >> explicitly that the Secretariat can only do what is stated and that >> the process does not really start until the Chair is named and in >> place. More elaborate options are possible but I'm more in favor of >> keeping it simple and stating less. >> >> Second, I can not think of any reason not to include the IAOC in this >> change. Since one of the changes to this document was to include the >> IAOC along with the IAB and IESG, why exclude them from this step? >> If we're really going to do that then we need to state why. >> >> Jim >> >> >> >> >> >> -- On March 3, 2009 4:19:33 PM -0600 Spencer Dawkins >> wrote regarding Re: [ietf-nomcom] past >> nomcom chair starting next process -- >> >>> Just to let people know - Russ thought this was a good suggested >>> change, so I've submitted an 01 version of the draft (at >>> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-dawkins-nomcom-dont-wait-01 >>> .txt) that now assigns the responsibility to the IETF Secretariat. >>> >>> Thanks for your feedback, >>> >>> Spencer >>> >>> > 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 >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 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 > > _______________________________________________ > ietf-nomcom mailing list > ietf-nomcom@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-nomcom > From spencer@wonderhamster.org Sun Apr 5 13:13:13 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 0B63C3A6988 for ; Sun, 5 Apr 2009 13:13:13 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.251 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.251 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.348, 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 7ci1pVWxs+Mf for ; Sun, 5 Apr 2009 13:13:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mout.perfora.net (mout.perfora.net [74.208.4.195]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B7FBF3A695C for ; Sun, 5 Apr 2009 13:13:05 -0700 (PDT) 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-1LqYit09uU-000cdt; Sun, 05 Apr 2009 16:13:47 -0400 Message-ID: <37DAFF9A571843AD9C7486410906AB29@china.huawei.com> From: "Spencer Dawkins" To: , "Russ Housley" References: <20090220174517.76C3913B906E@newdev.eecs.harvard.edu> <4DB48A98040A7F85FC7609B8@eList-eXpress-LLC.local> <20090405162815.B41BD9A4725@odin.smetech.net> <49D8FF64.9040402@cisco.com> Date: Sun, 5 Apr 2009 15:13:22 -0500 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/Gh/qvyT4bvXFGODzJ1O8oqd59vB4RxbN3IAD UxVMKh90SQqmW+LB4lh0awWA1+VGKEDs2ggRqc/WXnMy2BJYaq rg1K2bRz3Y+nqi0y9os72lY4zn4GKplwa8ZhoGAtOQ= Cc: ietf-nomcom@ietf.org, James M Galvin 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, 05 Apr 2009 20:13:13 -0000 Yeah, I think this is the tipping point. The first version of this draft relied on the past NomCom chair to get started, and the comments were "gee, we have a secretariat, why not use it?" and "and there's other stuff that could happen before the new chair shows up". I pointed everything to the secretariat (first comment) and added other stuff (second comment). There's still work to do. I'm wondering about putting the past NomCom chair in charge of deciding whether something requires judgement, but wonder what other people would think about that before I try to write draft text... I am hoping NOT to have a list of what the secretariat can do, that we have to update every time we identify a new task that doesn't require judgement. Thanks, Spencer > It would also be reasonable for the outgoing Nomcom chair to provide the > the Secretariat with the RNG seeds and take any judgmental actions until > the appointment of the incoming chair. In other words transfer all the > initial duties of the nomcom chair to a combination of the outgoing Chair > and the Secretariat with all mechanical duties being conducted by the > Secretariat. > > Stewart > > > Russ Housley wrote: >> In plenary I heard some of these same concerns. I got the impression >> that people were supportive of the Secretariat taking actions that >> involve no judgment. >> >> It seems to me that the call for people willing to serve on NomCom is a >> very reasonable thing for the Secretariat to do. Under the current >> system, the volunteers contact the NomCom Chair who passes the name to >> the Secretariat to determine if they are qualified, and then the names >> are passed back to the NomCom Chair. It seems much simpler for the >> Secretariat to make the call and at the end of the 30 days provide a list >> of the qualified volunteers to the NomCom Chair. >> >> This approach provides several additional weeks to locate a NomCom chair. >> Hopefully these weeks are not needed, but we have seen at least one case >> where the time is needed. >> >> Russ >> >> At 10:00 AM 4/5/2009, James M Galvin wrote: >>> I'm supportive of changing the "rules" to allow some of the more >>> administrative tasks to be taken over by the Secretariat, in principle. >>> However, I have two concerns with this proposed change. >>> >>> First, I think we need to state explicitly how far the process can go >>> without a NOMCOM chair. This could be as simple as simply stating >>> explicitly that the Secretariat can only do what is stated and that the >>> process does not really start until the Chair is named and in place. >>> More elaborate options are possible but I'm more in favor of keeping it >>> simple and stating less. >>> >>> Second, I can not think of any reason not to include the IAOC in this >>> change. Since one of the changes to this document was to include the >>> IAOC along with the IAB and IESG, why exclude them from this step? If >>> we're really going to do that then we need to state why. >>> >>> Jim >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- On March 3, 2009 4:19:33 PM -0600 Spencer Dawkins >>> wrote regarding Re: [ietf-nomcom] past >>> nomcom chair starting next process -- >>> >>>> Just to let people know - Russ thought this was a good suggested >>>> change, so I've submitted an 01 version of the draft (at >>>> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-dawkins-nomcom-dont-wait-01 >>>> .txt) that now assigns the responsibility to the IETF Secretariat. >>>> >>>> Thanks for your feedback, >>>> >>>> Spencer >>>> >>>> > 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 >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> 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 >> >> _______________________________________________ >> ietf-nomcom mailing list >> ietf-nomcom@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-nomcom >> > > From stbryant@cisco.com Sun Apr 5 13:30:25 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 DF5843A687D for ; Sun, 5 Apr 2009 13:30:25 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -7.555 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.555 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.956, 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 mAQ7u9Bj+0eI for ; Sun, 5 Apr 2009 13:30:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sj-iport-6.cisco.com (sj-iport-6.cisco.com [171.71.176.117]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 649453A6B70 for ; Sun, 5 Apr 2009 13:30:18 -0700 (PDT) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.39,327,1235952000"; d="scan'208";a="280732002" Received: from ams-dkim-1.cisco.com ([144.254.224.138]) by sj-iport-6.cisco.com with ESMTP; 05 Apr 2009 20:31:22 +0000 Received: from ams-core-1.cisco.com (ams-core-1.cisco.com [144.254.224.150]) by ams-dkim-1.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id n35KVM82006100; Sun, 5 Apr 2009 22:31:22 +0200 Received: from cisco.com (mrwint.cisco.com [64.103.71.48]) by ams-core-1.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id n35KVLBP002197; Sun, 5 Apr 2009 20:31:21 GMT Received: from Stewarts-Computer.local (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by cisco.com (8.11.7p3+Sun/8.8.8) with ESMTP id n35KVK114977; Sun, 5 Apr 2009 21:31:20 +0100 (BST) Message-ID: <49D91518.20601@cisco.com> Date: Sun, 05 Apr 2009 21:31:20 +0100 From: Stewart Bryant User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.19 (Macintosh/20081209) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Spencer Dawkins References: <20090220174517.76C3913B906E@newdev.eecs.harvard.edu> <4DB48A98040A7F85FC7609B8@eList-eXpress-LLC.local> <20090405162815.B41BD9A4725@odin.smetech.net> <49D8FF64.9040402@cisco.com> <37DAFF9A571843AD9C7486410906AB29@china.huawei.com> In-Reply-To: <37DAFF9A571843AD9C7486410906AB29@china.huawei.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; l=5151; t=1238963482; x=1239827482; c=relaxed/simple; s=amsdkim1002; h=Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; d=cisco.com; i=stbryant@cisco.com; z=From:=20Stewart=20Bryant=20 |Subject:=20Re=3A=20[ietf-nomcom]=20past=20nomcom=20chair=2 0starting=20next=20process |Sender:=20; bh=6IpLbF2zi+A/cA9vTEvgpBwtSHDwQ3jcQTjJrcuhOqo=; b=SMuCi+iAZfJAtexNXkgHmh7ur8fc6Vb2NjjByHX60Gxr7Ba6Wej//HMtSi 9Vpwy0EwjZQsrawOpoCc0lh7OP1W51YHPtnUoGn4l1TY5R7cW8tGkHuK6JSL M28P0O29EY; Authentication-Results: ams-dkim-1; header.From=stbryant@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/amsdkim1002 verified; ); Cc: ietf-nomcom@ietf.org, James M Galvin Subject: Re: [ietf-nomcom] past nomcom chair starting next process X-BeenThere: ietf-nomcom@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list Reply-To: stbryant@cisco.com 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, 05 Apr 2009 20:30:26 -0000 Spencer Can't we simply state that it is the duty of the outgoing chair to run the process of appointing the nomcom membership for the next nomcom and any other associated activities (any part of which may be delegated), and that it is the duty of the incoming chair to convene and chair the first and subsequent meetings of the new nomcom. Stewart Spencer Dawkins wrote: > Yeah, I think this is the tipping point. The first version of this > draft relied on the past NomCom chair to get started, and the comments > were "gee, we have a secretariat, why not use it?" and "and there's > other stuff that could happen before the new chair shows up". > > I pointed everything to the secretariat (first comment) and added > other stuff (second comment). There's still work to do. > > I'm wondering about putting the past NomCom chair in charge of > deciding whether something requires judgement, but wonder what other > people would think about that before I try to write draft text... > > I am hoping NOT to have a list of what the secretariat can do, that we > have to update every time we identify a new task that doesn't require > judgement. > > Thanks, > > Spencer > >> It would also be reasonable for the outgoing Nomcom chair to provide >> the the Secretariat with the RNG seeds and take any judgmental >> actions until the appointment of the incoming chair. In other words >> transfer all the initial duties of the nomcom chair to a combination >> of the outgoing Chair and the Secretariat with all mechanical duties >> being conducted by the Secretariat. >> >> Stewart >> >> >> Russ Housley wrote: >>> In plenary I heard some of these same concerns. I got the >>> impression that people were supportive of the Secretariat taking >>> actions that involve no judgment. >>> >>> It seems to me that the call for people willing to serve on NomCom >>> is a very reasonable thing for the Secretariat to do. Under the >>> current system, the volunteers contact the NomCom Chair who passes >>> the name to the Secretariat to determine if they are qualified, and >>> then the names are passed back to the NomCom Chair. It seems much >>> simpler for the Secretariat to make the call and at the end of the >>> 30 days provide a list of the qualified volunteers to the NomCom Chair. >>> >>> This approach provides several additional weeks to locate a NomCom >>> chair. Hopefully these weeks are not needed, but we have seen at >>> least one case where the time is needed. >>> >>> Russ >>> >>> At 10:00 AM 4/5/2009, James M Galvin wrote: >>>> I'm supportive of changing the "rules" to allow some of the more >>>> administrative tasks to be taken over by the Secretariat, in >>>> principle. However, I have two concerns with this proposed change. >>>> >>>> First, I think we need to state explicitly how far the process can >>>> go without a NOMCOM chair. This could be as simple as simply >>>> stating explicitly that the Secretariat can only do what is stated >>>> and that the process does not really start until the Chair is named >>>> and in place. More elaborate options are possible but I'm more in >>>> favor of keeping it simple and stating less. >>>> >>>> Second, I can not think of any reason not to include the IAOC in >>>> this change. Since one of the changes to this document was to >>>> include the IAOC along with the IAB and IESG, why exclude them from >>>> this step? If we're really going to do that then we need to state >>>> why. >>>> >>>> Jim >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- On March 3, 2009 4:19:33 PM -0600 Spencer Dawkins >>>> wrote regarding Re: [ietf-nomcom] past >>>> nomcom chair starting next process -- >>>> >>>>> Just to let people know - Russ thought this was a good suggested >>>>> change, so I've submitted an 01 version of the draft (at >>>>> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-dawkins-nomcom-dont-wait-01 >>>>> .txt) that now assigns the responsibility to the IETF Secretariat. >>>>> >>>>> Thanks for your feedback, >>>>> >>>>> Spencer >>>>> >>>>> > 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 >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> 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 >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> ietf-nomcom mailing list >>> ietf-nomcom@ietf.org >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-nomcom >>> >> >> > > > From brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com Sun Apr 5 14:37:26 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 7CE8C3A6A20 for ; Sun, 5 Apr 2009 14:37:26 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.491 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.491 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.108, 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 Gb7V7t3TjnCh for ; Sun, 5 Apr 2009 14:37:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: from rv-out-0506.google.com (rv-out-0506.google.com [209.85.198.233]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9F7C13A6B75 for ; Sun, 5 Apr 2009 14:37:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: by rv-out-0506.google.com with SMTP id k40so1629622rvb.49 for ; Sun, 05 Apr 2009 14:38:31 -0700 (PDT) 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=aiU/L7F/9cAVMI8yhXHi9xo0VQpYXe7dM3YFkl3uHS0=; b=JAifDgicH1oNrGgCWZWOi7N7Ym5SXkOzVZTWJxjg/9TuhFPcPN2tP2K8SIP5XylmDj o8cvnpm1MnOjqR1ng0i+2O34tdHX8JgVLrUmgcDXzGoOJpcafdJwe14/DogtblE/gpJ/ F3DIszCw1HPm8rpjPrlT/aBbNQqXZimbyDCMg= 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=jWWHONCLRilisV+F5NwedxM9WPyzIIGkjOdoYrjPyParvOyejERICbG29w8b3EgfHs SdjCqEeTyVUyTU4Mx0cr/XCNA6VqWHLdr+Or2oaIBB4U1O6Hd+vTzC0CBkffMKOXMuw+ nfDIyXElDotd++1ycbHK0MV64JRGvg84Vz/6U= Received: by 10.114.95.12 with SMTP id s12mr1874347wab.223.1238967510968; Sun, 05 Apr 2009 14:38:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ?130.216.38.124? (stf-brian.sfac.auckland.ac.nz [130.216.38.124]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id j26sm4720988waf.59.2009.04.05.14.38.28 (version=SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Sun, 05 Apr 2009 14:38:30 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <49D924D2.80906@gmail.com> Date: Mon, 06 Apr 2009 09:38:26 +1200 From: Brian E Carpenter Organization: University of Auckland User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.6 (Windows/20070728) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Joel M. Halpern" References: <9095EE5BC20C407BB9B043D6DA268B11@china.huawei.com> <2D6D09EF4262A274AF556633@eList-eXpress-LLC.local> <49D64A60.5060204@joelhalpern.com> <49D7E9EF.7030506@gmail.com> <49D82EF1.9090108@joelhalpern.com> In-Reply-To: <49D82EF1.9090108@joelhalpern.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: NomCom Discussion , James M Galvin Subject: Re: [ietf-nomcom] Ringers / Padding on Nominee list 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, 05 Apr 2009 21:37:26 -0000 Joel, I understand the need for flexibility. There needs to be an escape clause for the NomCom if external events intervene. But if there is any *vagueness* about the deadlines, bad things can happen too. People will be more likely to defer their comments until it's too late, and then complain that they were ignored. Suppose the public list for Foobar AD contains Tweedledum and Tweedledee, everyone sends in their comments, and three days before the First IETF, the Nomcom announces that they have both had to step down, and that the shortlist now consists only of Humpty Dumpty. This would be a very bad situation, and I believe we should write the rules to make it highly unlikely. I can only see deadlines as a way to do that. Brian On 2009-04-05 16:09, Joel M. Halpern wrote: > There is a problem with a real firm deadline for nominations. > Things go wrong. In absurd ways. > The nomcom has been known in the past to decide that they did not like > the alternatives on the table, and they went out and got someone else > they liked better. They are not going to determine that before the > deadline. > Do we really want to take that away from them? > > And on the "willing to serve" deadline, reality creates the issue there. > There person may be willing to serve. There management may have been > willing to support them. And them something changes. Outside of the > IETF purview. We don't get to tell companies how to manage their budgets. > So no matter how strict we make the willingness test, at the point of > finalizing everything it has to be rechecked. > At the same time, when there is still a large pool being considered > people really can not go to their management and say "make this work for > me." Even if their manager does so, if the nomcom turns them down they > have used up at least good will, and sometimes more than that. > We have to be very careful about where we place those roadblocks. > > Declaring that there is a date after which the nomcom is likely to pay > less attention to new nominees is useful. Declaring that the nomcom can > not bend that is harmful. > > Yours, > Joel > > Brian E Carpenter wrote: >> On 2009-04-04 06:41, Joel M. Halpern wrote: >>> I agree that simply keeping the current list of nominees available is >>> the simplest and most effective technique. (THere may be an argument >>> for delaying the initial availability of the lsit by a few days, but >>> that is a nit.) >> >> +1 >> >> Add to that, firm dates for >> >> a) initial publication of the list >> b) a real final deadline for nominations >> c) a real final deadline for 'willing to serve' responses from nominees >> >> No more ringers, ever, please. If there are only one or two >> willing nominees, so be it. >> >> Brian >> _______________________________________________ >> ietf-nomcom mailing list >> ietf-nomcom@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-nomcom >> > > From brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com Sun Apr 5 14:44:32 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 D68C73A6857 for ; Sun, 5 Apr 2009 14:44:32 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.476 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.476 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.123, 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 P33G7vLpHJKn for ; Sun, 5 Apr 2009 14:44:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: from rv-out-0506.google.com (rv-out-0506.google.com [209.85.198.237]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 26D0C3A68F5 for ; Sun, 5 Apr 2009 14:44:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: by rv-out-0506.google.com with SMTP id k40so1630591rvb.49 for ; Sun, 05 Apr 2009 14:45:37 -0700 (PDT) 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=tKQGnM1OO3gUPwQdukPbWU/6FF1Xi8PEXOfprDk3r6c=; b=xrhp6o5WX2KYQg8AUlL1QOZus+gw0dXoh+y80MLSXFOTbhriPrXgMOkGMpzTk64XEy YgqcuClcTfQZ1/eS/0kWRnlfL+nyqebd0HojizgvtRlxVnPtgCj4buusTkoGdCID6qj0 SRspHG3ME1LFmOtHZnQ7pqFaijIvyeT2fk8jk= 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=lLQm52YtYL+9NXyzaM6P2QZEanRj5wWY+LX0EzS5jnxZEYrvQP/TvASnncXqq3QIiH ly7/F9ytLkm4JAJA9zQzyTdbXM4JRwbySHQki/6oGd7Ux8LdTwcnEiUJ65YSGKnevZI7 Q7RiNfusdyKq0PPEjNBYGeo0vGkFEdqOq9P28= Received: by 10.141.45.16 with SMTP id x16mr1033291rvj.227.1238967937524; Sun, 05 Apr 2009 14:45:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ?130.216.38.124? (stf-brian.sfac.auckland.ac.nz [130.216.38.124]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id f21sm15788905rvb.5.2009.04.05.14.45.35 (version=SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Sun, 05 Apr 2009 14:45:37 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <49D9267D.7050407@gmail.com> Date: Mon, 06 Apr 2009 09:45:33 +1200 From: Brian E Carpenter Organization: University of Auckland User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.6 (Windows/20070728) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: stbryant@cisco.com References: <20090220174517.76C3913B906E@newdev.eecs.harvard.edu> <4DB48A98040A7F85FC7609B8@eList-eXpress-LLC.local> <20090405162815.B41BD9A4725@odin.smetech.net> <49D8FF64.9040402@cisco.com> <37DAFF9A571843AD9C7486410906AB29@china.huawei.com> <49D91518.20601@cisco.com> In-Reply-To: <49D91518.20601@cisco.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: ietf-nomcom@ietf.org, James M Galvin 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, 05 Apr 2009 21:44:32 -0000 On 2009-04-06 08:31, Stewart Bryant wrote: > Spencer > > Can't we simply state that it is the duty of the outgoing chair to run > the process of appointing the nomcom membership for the next nomcom and > any other associated activities (any part of which may be delegated), > and that it is the duty of the incoming chair to convene and chair the > first and subsequent meetings of the new nomcom. I would have thought that an outgoing chair would find this to be an unreasonable burden, at a time when s/he would be considered by most observers to have finished the main task and deserve some time off. So I'd dial it back to triggering the Secretariat (and nagging the ISOC President until the new chair is appointed). Otoh, it would seem odd if we can't specify the random selection mechanism enough that it can be done by the Secretariat. Brian From brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com Sun Apr 5 14:45:52 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 7E5723A6B75 for ; Sun, 5 Apr 2009 14:45:52 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.477 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.477 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.122, 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 XkJtgC+Qbj1d for ; Sun, 5 Apr 2009 14:45:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: from rv-out-0506.google.com (rv-out-0506.google.com [209.85.198.238]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CC68C3A6A6E for ; Sun, 5 Apr 2009 14:45:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: by rv-out-0506.google.com with SMTP id k40so1630738rvb.49 for ; Sun, 05 Apr 2009 14:46:57 -0700 (PDT) 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=dDblDtszBv+hrh8adDBBRc8UXuf3l3Q5J7nRaSAg3xo=; b=jVURzx8lJPwOwoxrvY00xyIVQIZ3fq3X6JITtN3ts+C0+bkpNvIBtKaGwTNRg4YJLk we1msmoap5cW0Ad8CoEiaWvDHk4UKdKyxHbx0hhIFjKo9YLp79yk4AI5Fc3V7AZ1kqzh mmwAIPmea62w040a4GHKE8rJHydE2Sbzf+Khw= 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=wKs0XJuHxApj3IOeeWAi9JvT2bYhs1lLMQy63J7me+BPl6OgIsfTmoFpgHby/6gYvZ +Dn1L0ti9HTuPkXrCA0HXSw4WXqvDQCFEKb1cx0HuB4I3FzmqL10VYegaZNgOauH9vMW VvQ1pHNuGMzvvgBgFjgWsVhlrmDrMYcNzYnfk= Received: by 10.141.136.4 with SMTP id o4mr1810198rvn.90.1238968017222; Sun, 05 Apr 2009 14:46:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ?130.216.38.124? (stf-brian.sfac.auckland.ac.nz [130.216.38.124]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id f21sm11971029rvb.35.2009.04.05.14.46.55 (version=SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Sun, 05 Apr 2009 14:46:56 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <49D926CE.9050304@gmail.com> Date: Mon, 06 Apr 2009 09:46:54 +1200 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: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: ietf-nomcom@ietf.org Subject: Re: [ietf-nomcom] draft-galvin-rfc3777bis-00 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, 05 Apr 2009 21:45:52 -0000 On 2009-04-06 02:11, James Galvin wrote: ... > Although the prevailing wisdom has been the ISOC BOT, IAOC, IAB, and > IESG can not participate in recall petitions, I think this is wrong. I > agree with John that this ambiguity should be changed in favor of > allowing sitting members to support and participate in recall petitions. > > What do others think? I agree too. Brian From jmh@joelhalpern.com Sun Apr 5 14:56:13 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 175D53A6BA6 for ; Sun, 5 Apr 2009 14:56:13 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.482 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.482 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.117, 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 IOTyebjvRwYk for ; Sun, 5 Apr 2009 14:56:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.mail.tigertech.net (hermes.mail.tigertech.net [64.62.209.72]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 654CC3A6BA5 for ; Sun, 5 Apr 2009 14:56:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hermes.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 00281430425; Sun, 5 Apr 2009 14:57:12 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at hermes.tigertech.net Received: from [10.10.10.100] (pool-71-161-52-88.clppva.btas.verizon.net [71.161.52.88]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by hermes.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 15911430421; Sun, 5 Apr 2009 14:57:11 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <49D92931.6090702@joelhalpern.com> Date: Sun, 05 Apr 2009 17:57:05 -0400 From: "Joel M. Halpern" User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.21 (Windows/20090302) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Brian E Carpenter References: <20090220174517.76C3913B906E@newdev.eecs.harvard.edu> <4DB48A98040A7F85FC7609B8@eList-eXpress-LLC.local> <20090405162815.B41BD9A4725@odin.smetech.net> <49D8FF64.9040402@cisco.com> <37DAFF9A571843AD9C7486410906AB29@china.huawei.com> <49D91518.20601@cisco.com> <49D9267D.7050407@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <49D9267D.7050407@gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: ietf-nomcom@ietf.org, James M Galvin 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, 05 Apr 2009 21:56:13 -0000 While it looks like the random selection is mechanistic enough to leave to the secretariat, in practice it is not. The minor reason is that the rules to do not mandate the selection procedure. They merely recommend the use of the BCP. The major reason is that the BCP does not specify what the random seeds are. The nomcom chair picks them. And the chair has to check carefully for the timing and reliable availability of the numbers so that the algorithm can actually be run when specified. I was lucky. The seeds Lakshminath had would were still available, and still reliable, so I was able to just use them. But the procedure certainly can not assume that various lotteries won't change their drawing styles, or that the US Government won't change its debt reporting strategies, etc. Yours, Joel Brian E Carpenter wrote: > On 2009-04-06 08:31, Stewart Bryant wrote: >> Spencer >> >> Can't we simply state that it is the duty of the outgoing chair to run >> the process of appointing the nomcom membership for the next nomcom and >> any other associated activities (any part of which may be delegated), >> and that it is the duty of the incoming chair to convene and chair the >> first and subsequent meetings of the new nomcom. > > I would have thought that an outgoing chair would find this to be > an unreasonable burden, at a time when s/he would be considered by > most observers to have finished the main task and deserve some time > off. So I'd dial it back to triggering the Secretariat (and nagging > the ISOC President until the new chair is appointed). > > Otoh, it would seem odd if we can't specify the random selection > mechanism enough that it can be done by the Secretariat. > > Brian > _______________________________________________ > ietf-nomcom mailing list > ietf-nomcom@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-nomcom > From brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com Sun Apr 5 15:00:41 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 DA8813A6B3C for ; Sun, 5 Apr 2009 15:00:41 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.479 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.479 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.120, 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 IFocPdS1rFYu for ; Sun, 5 Apr 2009 15:00:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: from rv-out-0506.google.com (rv-out-0506.google.com [209.85.198.239]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D90C13A6B28 for ; Sun, 5 Apr 2009 15:00:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: by rv-out-0506.google.com with SMTP id k40so1632756rvb.49 for ; Sun, 05 Apr 2009 15:01:46 -0700 (PDT) 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=5OBDZ9LInFgcv5L0VIeuMu1a4wdq6U3xUs/td099m84=; b=m0oIm4qPygu80DEUBXY/vE1zQFvbTOyHBM6P+MDLdX595iVa6mE3bCU/aSiVRZmw59 PXvS+CPfzv4D3XAk7mTjI2D5ffJpdRvlGN7taT1KP3Tp9+hfVztw8WJttmbVxR0lbd+0 FpqO8rV71lPJPE0XeCvSNaPgzTkgSu1MHnFIM= 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=SMc0wEcSvRUf7iqVoZCESZrA57gWZOh1R1W9FXFNNbz9drJe9pzPx1xrWUtBj0KkEm jmnEREIjzik2nc2g9wg412XMljBvdmuxSCzLpOxVI5izh84WiCPq3Wha4PyBH0G5+QpC 3Vh41hZVLXqQfYfl72wKKRbmXX6fQiLKo6I48= Received: by 10.142.135.13 with SMTP id i13mr1073796wfd.217.1238968906295; Sun, 05 Apr 2009 15:01:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ?130.216.38.124? (stf-brian.sfac.auckland.ac.nz [130.216.38.124]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id 22sm6545609wfi.41.2009.04.05.15.01.44 (version=SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Sun, 05 Apr 2009 15:01:45 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <49D92A47.9010508@gmail.com> Date: Mon, 06 Apr 2009 10:01:43 +1200 From: Brian E Carpenter Organization: University of Auckland User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.6 (Windows/20070728) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Russ Housley References: <20090405161647.F24819A4721@odin.smetech.net> In-Reply-To: <20090405161647.F24819A4721@odin.smetech.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: NomCom Discussion Subject: Re: [ietf-nomcom] Guidance on the liaison role 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, 05 Apr 2009 22:00:41 -0000 Russ, This all seems correct to me. However, three of the liaisons also have another role. The IAB, IESG and ISOC (Board) liaisons are all from confirming bodies. So, I think we should add something like: Liaisons are bound by the NomCom's rules of confidentiality. However, when reporting back to the bodies they represent, they are allowed to report in general terms about progress and problems. While those bodies are acting as confirming bodies, the liaisons are expected to report in general terms on the fairness of the NomCom's process and on whether the NomCom appeared to reach its decisions on the basis of complete and accurate information. Brian On 2009-04-06 04:16, Russ Housley wrote: > One message that cam through very clearly at plenary was that the > community wanted clarity on the role of the liaisons the ISOC BoT, IAB, > IESG, and possibly in the future from the IAOC. > > This has been a topic of much debate in the past. The IESG decided to > address it for their own liaison by drafting instructions to their > liaison before the NomCom was seated. The IESG plans to do the same > again this year. The IESG shared these instructions openly. The idea > was simple, if everyone knows the instructions, then any attempt to > participate in a manner that goes too far will be obvious to all NomCom > members. > > So, to get the discussion going, I'm posting the instructions that the > IESG gave to the liaison to the current NomCom. > > Russ > > = = = = = = = = = = > > These apply when the liaison is speaking to NomCom in his liaison role. > The person who fills the liaison role may also provide personal feedback > to NomCom but only through communication channels available to general > IETF participants (e.g. the feedback web form). When interacting with > the NomCom through liaison channels, the liaison will represent the > views of the IESG rather than personal opinion. > > We came up with 4 guidelines and 1 meta-guideline: > > 1. Neutrality test. When the Liaison is speaking to NomCom in his > liaison role it should not be possible for the NomCom to determine > the Liaison's personal opinion about a particular candidate, based > on statements by the Liaison. This involves sticking to facts and > avoiding personal opinions. > > 2. Follow NomCom Liaison Rules in RFC 3777, which includes: > > Liaisons are expected to represent the views of their respective > organizations during the deliberations of the committee. They > should provide information as requested or when they believe it > would be helpful to the committee. > > 3. Act in the best interest of the IETF. > > 4. The IESG doesn't want to be a self-selecting body, so the liaison > should take care to avoid actions that might produce such a result. > > Meta-guideline: > > When any of the four guidelines are in conflict, the liaison will use > his best judgment to resolve the conflict. Guideline 1 should override > guideline 3 when they are in conflict. > > _______________________________________________ > ietf-nomcom mailing list > ietf-nomcom@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-nomcom > From rcallon@juniper.net Sun Apr 5 19:58:29 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 85A4D28C0FC for ; Sun, 5 Apr 2009 19:58:29 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.469 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.469 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.130, 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 QT3pCCDZVe9c for ; Sun, 5 Apr 2009 19:58:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: from exprod7og103.obsmtp.com (exprod7og103.obsmtp.com [64.18.2.159]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3E20B28C0FE for ; Sun, 5 Apr 2009 19:57:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: from source ([66.129.224.36]) (using TLSv1) by exprod7ob103.postini.com ([64.18.6.12]) with SMTP ID DSNKSdlv8uPA4QiAi/HV4NQ3ExWd7qAEiwH5@postini.com; Sun, 05 Apr 2009 19:59:28 PDT Received: from p-emfe01-sac.jnpr.net (66.129.254.72) by P-EMHUB01-HQ.jnpr.net (172.24.192.35) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 8.1.340.0; Sun, 5 Apr 2009 19:57:35 -0700 Received: from p-emlb02-sac.jnpr.net ([66.129.254.47]) by p-emfe01-sac.jnpr.net with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Sun, 5 Apr 2009 19:57:35 -0700 Received: from emailwf1.jnpr.net ([10.10.2.33]) by p-emlb02-sac.jnpr.net with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Sun, 5 Apr 2009 19:57:35 -0700 x-mimeole: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-Class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Sun, 5 Apr 2009 22:57:28 -0400 Message-ID: <3525C9833C09ED418C6FD6CD9514668C060CB7BB@emailwf1.jnpr.net> In-Reply-To: <49D92A47.9010508@gmail.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [ietf-nomcom] Guidance on the liaison role Thread-Index: Acm2OiA2739q/ndvSV6MIZpReOOFWQAJzpzw References: <20090405161647.F24819A4721@odin.smetech.net> <49D92A47.9010508@gmail.com> From: Ross Callon To: "Brian E Carpenter" , "Russ Housley" X-OriginalArrivalTime: 06 Apr 2009 02:57:35.0139 (UTC) FILETIME=[6FDAAF30:01C9B663] Cc: NomCom Discussion Subject: Re: [ietf-nomcom] Guidance on the liaison role 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, 06 Apr 2009 02:58:29 -0000 Just to mention something that did not happen in my experience, but in principle could possibly happen in the future. Suppose that there was a great argument in nomcom regarding some particular position, and the confirming body was trying to decide on whether to confirm the result. I interpret Brian's text as saying that the liaison is permitted to report that there was some controversy regarding a particular appointment. To me this falls under "...report in general terms about progress and problems". I would interpret this as *not* reporting in any detail regarding what was said about particular nominees for the position, nor even report who the other nominees are (although separately we may have converged on making public the list of nominees who have accepted for each specific position). I think that this is the right thing, and thus support Brian's text. However, it is possible that in the future it might be useful to liaisons for the precise interpretation of this text to be as clear as is reasonably possible.=20 Ross -----Original Message----- From: ietf-nomcom-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-nomcom-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Brian E Carpenter Sent: 05 April 2009 18:02 To: Russ Housley Cc: NomCom Discussion Subject: Re: [ietf-nomcom] Guidance on the liaison role Russ, This all seems correct to me. However, three of the liaisons also have another role. The IAB, IESG and ISOC (Board) liaisons are all from confirming bodies. So, I think we should add something like: Liaisons are bound by the NomCom's rules of confidentiality. However, when reporting back to the bodies they represent, they are allowed to report in general terms about progress and problems. While those bodies are acting as confirming bodies, the liaisons are expected to report in general terms on the fairness of the NomCom's process and on whether the NomCom appeared to reach its decisions on the basis of complete and accurate information. Brian On 2009-04-06 04:16, Russ Housley wrote: > One message that cam through very clearly at plenary was that the > community wanted clarity on the role of the liaisons the ISOC BoT, IAB, > IESG, and possibly in the future from the IAOC. >=20 > This has been a topic of much debate in the past. The IESG decided to > address it for their own liaison by drafting instructions to their > liaison before the NomCom was seated. The IESG plans to do the same > again this year. The IESG shared these instructions openly. The idea > was simple, if everyone knows the instructions, then any attempt to > participate in a manner that goes too far will be obvious to all NomCom > members. >=20 > So, to get the discussion going, I'm posting the instructions that the > IESG gave to the liaison to the current NomCom. >=20 > Russ >=20 > =3D =3D =3D =3D =3D =3D =3D =3D =3D =3D >=20 > These apply when the liaison is speaking to NomCom in his liaison role. > The person who fills the liaison role may also provide personal feedback > to NomCom but only through communication channels available to general > IETF participants (e.g. the feedback web form). When interacting with > the NomCom through liaison channels, the liaison will represent the > views of the IESG rather than personal opinion. >=20 > We came up with 4 guidelines and 1 meta-guideline: >=20 > 1. Neutrality test. When the Liaison is speaking to NomCom in his > liaison role it should not be possible for the NomCom to determine > the Liaison's personal opinion about a particular candidate, based > on statements by the Liaison. This involves sticking to facts and > avoiding personal opinions. >=20 > 2. Follow NomCom Liaison Rules in RFC 3777, which includes: >=20 > Liaisons are expected to represent the views of their respective > organizations during the deliberations of the committee. They > should provide information as requested or when they believe it > would be helpful to the committee. >=20 > 3. Act in the best interest of the IETF. >=20 > 4. The IESG doesn't want to be a self-selecting body, so the liaison > should take care to avoid actions that might produce such a result. >=20 > Meta-guideline: >=20 > When any of the four guidelines are in conflict, the liaison will use > his best judgment to resolve the conflict. Guideline 1 should override > guideline 3 when they are in conflict. >=20 > _______________________________________________ > ietf-nomcom mailing list > ietf-nomcom@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-nomcom >=20 _______________________________________________ ietf-nomcom mailing list ietf-nomcom@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-nomcom From rcallon@juniper.net Sun Apr 5 20:02:01 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 DCF4B28C105 for ; Sun, 5 Apr 2009 20:02:01 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.47 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.47 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.129, 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 POlpNsRS9Sv8 for ; Sun, 5 Apr 2009 20:01:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: from exprod7og110.obsmtp.com (exprod7og110.obsmtp.com [64.18.2.173]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1A54028C0FF for ; Sun, 5 Apr 2009 20:01:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: from source ([66.129.224.36]) (using TLSv1) by exprod7ob110.postini.com ([64.18.6.12]) with SMTP ID DSNKSdlw02bOTvvUIMKvBtYTvbN6ee001TUm@postini.com; Sun, 05 Apr 2009 20:03:01 PDT Received: from p-emfe01-sac.jnpr.net (66.129.254.72) by P-EMHUB01-HQ.jnpr.net (172.24.192.35) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 8.1.340.0; Sun, 5 Apr 2009 20:02:01 -0700 Received: from p-emlb02-sac.jnpr.net ([66.129.254.47]) by p-emfe01-sac.jnpr.net with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Sun, 5 Apr 2009 20:02:01 -0700 Received: from emailwf1.jnpr.net ([10.10.2.33]) by p-emlb02-sac.jnpr.net with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Sun, 5 Apr 2009 20:02:00 -0700 x-mimeole: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-Class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Sun, 5 Apr 2009 23:01:58 -0400 Message-ID: <3525C9833C09ED418C6FD6CD9514668C060CB7BC@emailwf1.jnpr.net> In-Reply-To: <49D926CE.9050304@gmail.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [ietf-nomcom] draft-galvin-rfc3777bis-00 Thread-Index: Acm2OA3dmKD9jTkLRH+TtoAUW5xsWQAK9c5g References: <49D926CE.9050304@gmail.com> From: Ross Callon To: "Brian E Carpenter" , "James Galvin" X-OriginalArrivalTime: 06 Apr 2009 03:02:00.0586 (UTC) FILETIME=[0E12AEA0:01C9B664] Cc: ietf-nomcom@ietf.org Subject: Re: [ietf-nomcom] draft-galvin-rfc3777bis-00 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, 06 Apr 2009 03:02:02 -0000 I also agree (but I currently have no intention of actually participating in any particular one :-).=20 Ross -----Original Message----- From: ietf-nomcom-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-nomcom-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Brian E Carpenter Sent: 05 April 2009 17:47 To: James Galvin Cc: ietf-nomcom@ietf.org Subject: Re: [ietf-nomcom] draft-galvin-rfc3777bis-00 On 2009-04-06 02:11, James Galvin wrote: ... > Although the prevailing wisdom has been the ISOC BOT, IAOC, IAB, and > IESG can not participate in recall petitions, I think this is wrong. I > agree with John that this ambiguity should be changed in favor of > allowing sitting members to support and participate in recall petitions. >=20 > What do others think? I agree too. Brian _______________________________________________ ietf-nomcom mailing list ietf-nomcom@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-nomcom From rcallon@juniper.net Sun Apr 5 20:59:40 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 55E693A68B6 for ; Sun, 5 Apr 2009 20:59:40 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.472 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.472 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.127, 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 mqyP4KrPXNrZ for ; Sun, 5 Apr 2009 20:59:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: from exprod7og101.obsmtp.com (exprod7og101.obsmtp.com [64.18.2.155]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8B6553A685E for ; Sun, 5 Apr 2009 20:59:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: from source ([66.129.224.36]) (using TLSv1) by exprod7ob101.postini.com ([64.18.6.12]) with SMTP ID DSNKSdl+ZS+mgBsTm0IkZbcPRDKgLWtV4Er3@postini.com; Sun, 05 Apr 2009 21:00:45 PDT Received: from p-emfe01-sac.jnpr.net (66.129.254.72) by P-EMHUB01-HQ.jnpr.net (172.24.192.35) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 8.1.340.0; Sun, 5 Apr 2009 20:59:08 -0700 Received: from p-emlb02-sac.jnpr.net ([66.129.254.47]) by p-emfe01-sac.jnpr.net with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Sun, 5 Apr 2009 20:59:08 -0700 Received: from emailwf1.jnpr.net ([10.10.2.33]) by p-emlb02-sac.jnpr.net with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Sun, 5 Apr 2009 20:59:08 -0700 x-mimeole: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-Class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Sun, 5 Apr 2009 23:59:06 -0400 Message-ID: <3525C9833C09ED418C6FD6CD9514668C060CB7BE@emailwf1.jnpr.net> In-Reply-To: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [ietf-nomcom] Ringers / Padding on Nominee list Thread-Index: Acm1DkhHCJDbDutdSzOP/ClDI7izmgBXPhxw References: <9095EE5BC20C407BB9B043D6DA268B11@china.huawei.com><2D6D09EF4262A274AF556633@eList-eXpress-LLC.local><49D64A60.5060204@joelhalpern.com> From: Ross Callon To: "Lars Eggert" , "Joel M. Halpern" X-OriginalArrivalTime: 06 Apr 2009 03:59:08.0484 (UTC) FILETIME=[09426840:01C9B66C] Cc: NomCom Discussion , James M Galvin Subject: Re: [ietf-nomcom] Ringers / Padding on Nominee list 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, 06 Apr 2009 03:59:40 -0000 +1 =20 When we discussed making the list of candidates public, I just assumed that this included which position each person was nominated for and willing to serve (it is certainly possible for a person to be nominated for multiple positions, but only be willing to serve in one or two of the multiple positions). I agree that it is better to make this explicit.=20 Ross -----Original Message----- From: ietf-nomcom-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-nomcom-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Lars Eggert Sent: 04 April 2009 06:15 To: Joel M. Halpern Cc: NomCom Discussion; James M Galvin Subject: Re: [ietf-nomcom] Ringers / Padding on Nominee list On 2009-4-3, at 20:41, Joel M. Halpern wrote: > I would actually include positions. Folks are skilled at different > things, and just as I want to avoid padding the list, I don't want =20 > folks > trying to give the nomcom comments on whether a nominee would be good > for the IAOC when that is not what they are being considered for. +1 Lars From brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com Sun Apr 5 21:27:21 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 600AC3A69A4 for ; Sun, 5 Apr 2009 21:27:21 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.459 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.459 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.140, 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 vqmKYP7NnIfN for ; Sun, 5 Apr 2009 21:27:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: from rv-out-0506.google.com (rv-out-0506.google.com [209.85.198.225]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 225873A6982 for ; Sun, 5 Apr 2009 21:27:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: by rv-out-0506.google.com with SMTP id k40so1710917rvb.49 for ; Sun, 05 Apr 2009 21:28:25 -0700 (PDT) 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=rmOkxwVp33eNnYbRXKueyj6aPIxTe+BqP97LbNOlPmM=; b=MyaEw65HYwnCUF81f72dTkyo+YBDZiY4eRHK6O+tduBIHymiPGjzUdLT1fXl4yjxTv KAAuuZEPOyYpgr6I2aT02OuZhbHo4kAUmzKbvdgpQAU3wrpnvGRvh/+3hKLTz5bAQIVs GEwznhOZC8JEDn0pEbnS7R1w/bJ4WwcU5+9HY= 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=kUbCWRMDc3XWAiOj1yFGTmhPskcIjvaYOAQ/iqMqKgfVqfT+YcGN2gctFfpOCG/QPa GUXbIuy6aWyOX8a/USngVDcii9wMPZshhmoU0A+/RxLdE7K5+x5KNdAByIpeoSIiIFrE 4Db+0qYkfZYlx8jbT+vW5aVnwQm+DJQXLEQIE= Received: by 10.114.146.4 with SMTP id t4mr2041533wad.143.1238992105619; Sun, 05 Apr 2009 21:28:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ?130.216.38.124? (stf-brian.sfac.auckland.ac.nz [130.216.38.124]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id l37sm5040331waf.3.2009.04.05.21.28.23 (version=SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Sun, 05 Apr 2009 21:28:25 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <49D984E5.6000404@gmail.com> Date: Mon, 06 Apr 2009 16:28:21 +1200 From: Brian E Carpenter Organization: University of Auckland User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.6 (Windows/20070728) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Ross Callon References: <20090405161647.F24819A4721@odin.smetech.net> <49D92A47.9010508@gmail.com> <3525C9833C09ED418C6FD6CD9514668C060CB7BB@emailwf1.jnpr.net> In-Reply-To: <3525C9833C09ED418C6FD6CD9514668C060CB7BB@emailwf1.jnpr.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: NomCom Discussion Subject: Re: [ietf-nomcom] Guidance on the liaison role 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, 06 Apr 2009 04:27:21 -0000 Thanks Ross. On balance I'd slightly amend my own text "on the basis of complete and accurate information." becomes "after discussing pros and cons on the basis all available information." (because asserting that the information is truly complete and accurate would be a stretch; the issue is to be sure that NomCom didn't take hasty decisions.) Brian On 2009-04-06 14:57, Ross Callon wrote: > Just to mention something that did not happen in my experience, but in > principle could possibly happen in the future. > > Suppose that there was a great argument in nomcom regarding some > particular position, and the confirming body was trying to decide on > whether to confirm the result. I interpret Brian's text as saying that > the liaison is permitted to report that there was some controversy > regarding a particular appointment. To me this falls under "...report in > general terms about progress and problems". I would interpret this as > *not* reporting in any detail regarding what was said about particular > nominees for the position, nor even report who the other nominees are > (although separately we may have converged on making public the list of > nominees who have accepted for each specific position). > > I think that this is the right thing, and thus support Brian's text. > However, it is possible that in the future it might be useful to > liaisons for the precise interpretation of this text to be as clear as > is reasonably possible. > > Ross > > -----Original Message----- > From: ietf-nomcom-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-nomcom-bounces@ietf.org] > On Behalf Of Brian E Carpenter > Sent: 05 April 2009 18:02 > To: Russ Housley > Cc: NomCom Discussion > Subject: Re: [ietf-nomcom] Guidance on the liaison role > > Russ, > > This all seems correct to me. > > However, three of the liaisons also have another role. The IAB, > IESG and ISOC (Board) liaisons are all from confirming bodies. > > So, I think we should add something like: > > Liaisons are bound by the NomCom's rules of confidentiality. > However, when reporting back to the bodies they represent, > they are allowed to report in general terms about progress > and problems. While those bodies are acting as confirming bodies, > the liaisons are expected to report in general terms on the > fairness of the NomCom's process and on whether the NomCom > appeared to reach its decisions on the basis of complete and > accurate information. > > Brian > > On 2009-04-06 04:16, Russ Housley wrote: >> One message that cam through very clearly at plenary was that the >> community wanted clarity on the role of the liaisons the ISOC BoT, > IAB, >> IESG, and possibly in the future from the IAOC. >> >> This has been a topic of much debate in the past. The IESG decided to >> address it for their own liaison by drafting instructions to their >> liaison before the NomCom was seated. The IESG plans to do the same >> again this year. The IESG shared these instructions openly. The idea >> was simple, if everyone knows the instructions, then any attempt to >> participate in a manner that goes too far will be obvious to all > NomCom >> members. >> >> So, to get the discussion going, I'm posting the instructions that the >> IESG gave to the liaison to the current NomCom. >> >> Russ >> >> = = = = = = = = = = >> >> These apply when the liaison is speaking to NomCom in his liaison > role. >> The person who fills the liaison role may also provide personal > feedback >> to NomCom but only through communication channels available to general >> IETF participants (e.g. the feedback web form). When interacting with >> the NomCom through liaison channels, the liaison will represent the >> views of the IESG rather than personal opinion. >> >> We came up with 4 guidelines and 1 meta-guideline: >> >> 1. Neutrality test. When the Liaison is speaking to NomCom in his >> liaison role it should not be possible for the NomCom to determine >> the Liaison's personal opinion about a particular candidate, based >> on statements by the Liaison. This involves sticking to facts and >> avoiding personal opinions. >> >> 2. Follow NomCom Liaison Rules in RFC 3777, which includes: >> >> Liaisons are expected to represent the views of their respective >> organizations during the deliberations of the committee. They >> should provide information as requested or when they believe it >> would be helpful to the committee. >> >> 3. Act in the best interest of the IETF. >> >> 4. The IESG doesn't want to be a self-selecting body, so the liaison >> should take care to avoid actions that might produce such a result. >> >> Meta-guideline: >> >> When any of the four guidelines are in conflict, the liaison will use >> his best judgment to resolve the conflict. Guideline 1 should > override >> guideline 3 when they are in conflict. >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com Sun Apr 5 21:37:19 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 8A3BE3A6999 for ; Sun, 5 Apr 2009 21:37:19 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.46 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.46 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.139, 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 ngegCYZRDzh8 for ; Sun, 5 Apr 2009 21:37:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: from rv-out-0506.google.com (rv-out-0506.google.com [209.85.198.231]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8824F3A688C for ; Sun, 5 Apr 2009 21:37:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: by rv-out-0506.google.com with SMTP id k40so1713678rvb.49 for ; Sun, 05 Apr 2009 21:38:18 -0700 (PDT) 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:subject:references :in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=OHI8FuFCGLEYXFiuXMuYNWVBEuFdY+wKihPxlzhP6Ks=; b=A1dbD5S9hgO+A3EEW/eV7AnzJybXLWNix5AvQey3GtKv6pjEzj58lj1M8bWpoU/hKa QlvpiYWlkgt3RyR48w0DtfsJgTgtOApO2kKU+GxJ6/jeGXiPGkIYHhQSsKDlKUv5nrZ+ SD9y9/M66sXFsNrPaxS4qdhYYqWLQGt13FgRA= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:organization:user-agent:mime-version:to :subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; b=ZwYi90cD11MqNJccKF0c+TZNi5O5rv3fIzMWGHB0BoluhiPT2ng65RnTayFFv9lH7F SVAmnsSWGykzLPtwL7bvHep7LDKhlFTRmQ26dzMeBFRu3BkPYkwMvCyI2cEMKUuyevmW kvV3O5GPG8XPuHxoMXQXIgTk+Fu5UY7hRZ+Tw= Received: by 10.114.167.10 with SMTP id p10mr2040304wae.198.1238992698818; Sun, 05 Apr 2009 21:38:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ?130.216.38.124? (stf-brian.sfac.auckland.ac.nz [130.216.38.124]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id g25sm5014012wag.43.2009.04.05.21.38.17 (version=SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Sun, 05 Apr 2009 21:38:18 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <49D98735.4070806@gmail.com> Date: Mon, 06 Apr 2009 16:38:13 +1200 From: Brian E Carpenter Organization: University of Auckland User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.6 (Windows/20070728) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: NomCom Discussion References: <9095EE5BC20C407BB9B043D6DA268B11@china.huawei.com> <2D6D09EF4262A274AF556633@eList-eXpress-LLC.local> <49D64A60.5060204@joelhalpern.com> <49D7E9EF.7030506@gmail.com> <49D82EF1.9090108@joelhalpern.com> <49D924D2.80906@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <49D924D2.80906@gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [ietf-nomcom] Deadlines and late refusals [Ringers / Padding on Nominee list] 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, 06 Apr 2009 04:37:19 -0000 I hate to have to clarify my own post, but it seems this wasn't entirely clear. 1. Why do firm deadlines help? They would remove ambiguity about when the exceptional condition may occur. That just seems like it would prevent corner cases that we haven't even thought of. 2. And if we get a late retraction? A possible rule change is that once the confiming body confirms a candidate, then any late refusal by the candidate is considered to be the equivalent of a sitting person suddenly stepping down, to be filled according to the vacancy procedures, with all of the timelines, etc, which that entails. This seems ugly, but it could be useful as an option that NomCom MAY invoke (e.g., if they had no other acceptable short-listed candidate). Brian On 2009-04-06 09:38, Brian E Carpenter wrote: > Joel, > > I understand the need for flexibility. There needs to be an escape > clause for the NomCom if external events intervene. But if there is > any *vagueness* about the deadlines, bad things can happen too. > People will be more likely to defer their comments until it's > too late, and then complain that they were ignored. > > Suppose the public list for Foobar AD contains Tweedledum and Tweedledee, > everyone sends in their comments, and three days before the First IETF, > the Nomcom announces that they have both had to step down, and that > the shortlist now consists only of Humpty Dumpty. This would be > a very bad situation, and I believe we should write the rules to make > it highly unlikely. I can only see deadlines as a way to do that. > > Brian > > On 2009-04-05 16:09, Joel M. Halpern wrote: >> There is a problem with a real firm deadline for nominations. >> Things go wrong. In absurd ways. >> The nomcom has been known in the past to decide that they did not like >> the alternatives on the table, and they went out and got someone else >> they liked better. They are not going to determine that before the >> deadline. >> Do we really want to take that away from them? >> >> And on the "willing to serve" deadline, reality creates the issue there. >> There person may be willing to serve. There management may have been >> willing to support them. And them something changes. Outside of the >> IETF purview. We don't get to tell companies how to manage their budgets. >> So no matter how strict we make the willingness test, at the point of >> finalizing everything it has to be rechecked. >> At the same time, when there is still a large pool being considered >> people really can not go to their management and say "make this work for >> me." Even if their manager does so, if the nomcom turns them down they >> have used up at least good will, and sometimes more than that. >> We have to be very careful about where we place those roadblocks. >> >> Declaring that there is a date after which the nomcom is likely to pay >> less attention to new nominees is useful. Declaring that the nomcom can >> not bend that is harmful. >> >> Yours, >> Joel >> >> Brian E Carpenter wrote: >>> On 2009-04-04 06:41, Joel M. Halpern wrote: >>>> I agree that simply keeping the current list of nominees available is >>>> the simplest and most effective technique. (THere may be an argument >>>> for delaying the initial availability of the lsit by a few days, but >>>> that is a nit.) >>> +1 >>> >>> Add to that, firm dates for >>> >>> a) initial publication of the list >>> b) a real final deadline for nominations >>> c) a real final deadline for 'willing to serve' responses from nominees >>> >>> No more ringers, ever, please. If there are only one or two >>> willing nominees, so be it. >>> >>> Brian >>> _______________________________________________ >>> ietf-nomcom mailing list >>> ietf-nomcom@ietf.org >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-nomcom >>> >> > From john-ietf@jck.com Mon Apr 6 02:18:58 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 D401328C10F for ; Mon, 6 Apr 2009 02:18:58 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.579 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.579 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.020, 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 Etmjua8iwFvC for ; Mon, 6 Apr 2009 02:18:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: from bs.jck.com (ns.jck.com [209.187.148.211]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 571A33A6BC7 for ; Mon, 6 Apr 2009 02:18:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=localhost) by bs.jck.com with esmtp (Exim 4.34) id 1Lqkzk-00078V-Cb; Mon, 06 Apr 2009 05:19:56 -0400 Date: Mon, 06 Apr 2009 05:19:55 -0400 From: John C Klensin To: stbryant@cisco.com Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <49D91518.20601@cisco.com> References: <20090220174517.76C3913B906E@newdev.eecs.harvard.edu> <4DB48A98040A7F85FC7609B8@eList-eXpress-LLC.local> <20090405162815.B41BD9A4725@odin.smetech.net> <49D8FF64.9040402@cisco.com> <37DAFF9A571843AD9C7486410906AB29@china.huawei.com> <49D91518.20601@cisco.com> X-Mailer: Mulberry/4.0.8 (Win32) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Cc: ietf-nomcom@ietf.org 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: Mon, 06 Apr 2009 09:18:58 -0000 --On Sunday, April 05, 2009 21:31 +0100 Stewart Bryant wrote: > Spencer > > Can't we simply state that it is the duty of the outgoing > chair to run the process of appointing the nomcom membership > for the next nomcom and any other associated activities (any > part of which may be delegated), and that it is the duty of > the incoming chair to convene and chair the first and > subsequent meetings of the new nomcom. This seems like the right solution to me. I'm sympathetic to the burden of having to do this just when one thought one was finished that Brian identifies (especially for the first time, when the outgoing chair would have to run a second selection process after running one a year earlier). However, contrary to Brian's comment, whether the outgoing chair is "considered by most observers to have finished the main task and deserve some time off" or not, a chair really signs up for two years --one a chair and one as past chair but with significant responsibilities to the Nomcom. From the latter perspective, the [outgoing] chair is less than halfway through his or her term when the new selection process starts and appears to be the right person to stick with the parts of this task that, as Joel points out, requires a person. That said, redefining the tasks as Russ and others have suggested, putting as much of the administrative burden --collecting and validating names, running the random draw, etc.-- onto the Secretariat seems like a good idea. john From kre@munnari.OZ.AU Mon Apr 6 07:08:41 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 C77783A6850 for ; Mon, 6 Apr 2009 07:08:41 -0700 (PDT) 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 R1RUNLGs0S0Z for ; Mon, 6 Apr 2009 07:08:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: from jade.coe.psu.ac.th (unknown [202.28.99.196]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 177983A67E2 for ; Mon, 6 Apr 2009 07:08:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: from epsilon.noi.kre.to (jade.coe.psu.ac.th [202.28.99.196]) by jade.coe.psu.ac.th with ESMTP id n36E8Kwo023342; Mon, 6 Apr 2009 21:08:21 +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 n36E81Se002523; Mon, 6 Apr 2009 21:08:11 +0700 (ICT) From: Robert Elz To: Brian E Carpenter In-Reply-To: <49D924D2.80906@gmail.com> References: <49D924D2.80906@gmail.com> <9095EE5BC20C407BB9B043D6DA268B11@china.huawei.com> <2D6D09EF4262A274AF556633@eList-eXpress-LLC.local> <49D64A60.5060204@joelhalpern.com> <49D7E9EF.7030506@gmail.com> <49D82EF1.9090108@joelhalpern.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Mon, 06 Apr 2009 21:08:01 +0700 Message-ID: <21392.1239026881@epsilon.noi.kre.to> Sender: kre@munnari.OZ.AU Cc: NomCom Discussion Subject: Re: [ietf-nomcom] Ringers / Padding on Nominee list 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, 06 Apr 2009 14:08:41 -0000 Date: Mon, 06 Apr 2009 09:38:26 +1200 From: Brian E Carpenter Message-ID: <49D924D2.80906@gmail.com> | Suppose the public list for Foobar AD contains Tweedledum and Tweedledee, | everyone sends in their comments, and three days before the First IETF, | the Nomcom announces that they have both had to step down, and that | the shortlist now consists only of Humpty Dumpty. This would be | a very bad situation, Nonsense. But take an even more dramatic example, in this one neither Tweedle steps down, and both remain willing to serve, but assume that just before the candidates are about to be sent for confirmation, someone sends a message to the nomcom asking "Why aren't you considering Humpty? I think he'd be willing if you asked", and the nomcom all (figuratively) look at each other and wonder why his name never came up before and all realise that he's really the perfect and obvious choice, so they ask, get an OK, and it is done, the candidate list now has a name in it that it never had before. That's not a bad situation, it is the perfect situation - I doubt it will arise often, but whenever we find the best person for a job, and they're avaiulable, we should be selecting them, and we definitely do not want rules, or even guidelines around that would provide any resistance to this outcome. Remember, there's no democracy here, that isn't what the IETF is about, the only objective is to find the best available person for each available position. kre From housley@vigilsec.com Mon Apr 6 07:11:59 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 6E5833A6C10 for ; Mon, 6 Apr 2009 07:11:59 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.392 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.392 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.207, 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 RnQDcmRwEclF for ; Mon, 6 Apr 2009 07:11:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: from odin.smetech.net (mail.smetech.net [208.254.26.82]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 06F6E3A6C69 for ; Mon, 6 Apr 2009 07:11:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (unknown [208.254.26.81]) by odin.smetech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 85BDF9A4788; Mon, 6 Apr 2009 10:13:00 -0400 (EDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at smetech.net Received: from odin.smetech.net ([208.254.26.82]) by localhost (ronin.smetech.net [208.254.26.81]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id jSSjo0qeKxby; Mon, 6 Apr 2009 10:12:59 -0400 (EDT) Received: from THINKPADR52.vigilsec.com (pool-71-191-197-15.washdc.fios.verizon.net [71.191.197.15]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by odin.smetech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id C2E359A474D; Mon, 6 Apr 2009 10:12:59 -0400 (EDT) X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.1.0.9 Date: Mon, 06 Apr 2009 10:11:00 -0400 To: Brian E Carpenter From: Russ Housley In-Reply-To: <49D92A47.9010508@gmail.com> References: <20090405161647.F24819A4721@odin.smetech.net> <49D92A47.9010508@gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Message-Id: <20090406141259.C2E359A474D@odin.smetech.net> Cc: NomCom Discussion Subject: Re: [ietf-nomcom] Guidance on the liaison role 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, 06 Apr 2009 14:11:59 -0000 Brian: I agree that something like this should be included regarding liaisons from confirming bodies: >Liaisons are bound by the NomCom's rules of confidentiality. >However, when reporting back to the bodies they represent, >they are allowed to report in general terms about progress >and problems. While those bodies are acting as confirming bodies, >the liaisons are expected to report in general terms on the >fairness of the NomCom's process and on whether the NomCom >appeared to reach its decisions on the basis of complete and >accurate information. s/allowed/expected/ I'm not sure what you mean by "problems." I would expect the confirming bodies to get information about expected timeline, otherwise they do not know when they will be expected to perform their part of the process. Maybe this is what you mean by "fairness." I would want the liaison to report on whether the NomCom performed due diligence. In this capacity the liaison is providing a high-level report card on the NomCom to the confirming body. Russ From leslie@thinkingcat.com Mon Apr 6 08:19:46 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 9A78728C1EF for ; Mon, 6 Apr 2009 08:19:46 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.519 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.519 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.080, 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 ZqcmxP6NMylE for ; Mon, 6 Apr 2009 08:19:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: from zeke.ecotroph.net (zeke.ecotroph.net [70.164.19.155]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0680228C1F1 for ; Mon, 6 Apr 2009 08:19:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: from isocpwtravel01.isoc.local ([::ffff:209.183.196.229]) (AUTH: PLAIN leslie, SSL: TLSv1/SSLv3,256bits,AES256-SHA) by zeke.ecotroph.net with esmtp; Mon, 06 Apr 2009 11:20:44 -0400 id 015AC9FF.49DA1DCC.00004906 Message-ID: <49DA1DC4.1080906@thinkingcat.com> Date: Mon, 06 Apr 2009 11:20:36 -0400 From: Leslie Daigle User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.21 (Macintosh/20090302) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: James M Galvin References: <9095EE5BC20C407BB9B043D6DA268B11@china.huawei.com> <2D6D09EF4262A274AF556633@eList-eXpress-LLC.local> In-Reply-To: <2D6D09EF4262A274AF556633@eList-eXpress-LLC.local> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: NomCom Discussion Subject: Re: [ietf-nomcom] Ringers / Padding on Nominee list 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, 06 Apr 2009 15:19:46 -0000 So, I mostly agree with this, although I'm unclear on your point about moving sitting IAB/IESG members. ISTM that if a sitting IAB/IESG member is willing to be considered for a different position (whether or not they are in an open position), that should be just as public as any other nominee. Part of the rationale is to keep it simple. Another part of the rationale is that the NomCom presumably would appreciate input on whether, on balance, the move would be an improvement for the IETF. I hope we agree? Leslie. James M Galvin wrote: > I've been thinking about this issue of "when to publish the nominee > list" and the related "is the nominee list ever closed". > > The NOMCOM document never actually says that the nominee list closes. It > only speaks to the fact that the community needs a minimum amount of > time to propose nominees. I think this is important. > > What it means to me is that NOMCOM should maintain a public list on a > web site somewhere of all those people who have agreed to be considered > for some position. > > Thus, there is one check before a name gets on the nominee list: does > the nominated person (regardless of the source of the nomination) agree > to be considered? If the answer is yes then the name gets put on the > list. I think the list should amended as soon after a "yes" is received > as practical. This applies throughout the NOMCOM process until > candidates have been confirmed. > > The nominee list should not state what position a nominee is a candidate > for. This is because this can change. > > If somebody changes their mind about being considered I think the name > should be removed from the list. Let's just keep it simple, i.e., no > keeping a list of those that withdrew. > > And I do think that anybody who is a nominee needs to be listed. Thus, > if the NOMCOM decides it might move someone currently serving on the > IESG, IAB, or IAOC that is not currently in an open seat, then that name > needs to be added to the list. The NOMCOM document currently allows for > some amount of confidentiality about this move, which if we want to > continue we will need to allow some "wiggle room" in the phrase "the > list should be amended as soon after a "yes" is received as practical," > which I think has plenty of the desired wiggle room. > > Jim > > > > > > > -- On April 3, 2009 12:15:12 PM -0500 Spencer Dawkins > wrote regarding Re: [ietf-nomcom] Ringers / > Padding on Nominee list -- > >> Hi, Bernie, >> >> > I would like to repeat a statement a made earlier on this list and >> > in the plenary: Under certain circumstances it makes sense to add >> > ringers to the nominee list. One example is if only one nominee >> > applies for position X and adding ringers can trigger more useful >> > feedback on this sole nominee. >> > >> > However, adding ringers should be the exception, and whether or not >> > to add ringers should be at the discretion of the NomCom. >> > >> > Any thoughts on this? >> >> I was thinking about this prior to the plenary, so thanks for nudging >> me a couple more times ;-) >> >> OK, so we haven't talked about when/how often a NomCom might publish >> a nominee list publicly (I'm not suggesting that we need to specify >> much about this in the draft, I'm just saying that some people are >> assuming that there's a dance-of-seven-veils where people see the >> current nominee list and can nominate additional folks based on what >> they are seeing), but let's assume that the NomCom decides it's time >> to publicly announce an initial nominee list, and the nomination >> period is still open. >> >> If that's the case, I'm much more in favor of saying "don't pad the >> areas where you only have one (or two) willing nominees, and see how >> the community reacts to the possibility that there are only one (or >> two) nominees for that slot". >> >> Let's further assume that no additional (willing) nominees surface >> after the initial list is announced, so that there are still areas >> with only one (or two) nominees. >> >> What do we think the NomCom should do, at that point? >> >> I have some opinions, but I'll stop typing now. >> >> 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 -- ------------------------------------------------------------------- "Reality: Yours to discover." -- ThinkingCat Leslie Daigle leslie@thinkingcat.com ------------------------------------------------------------------- From john-ietf@jck.com Mon Apr 6 09:16:35 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 282CE3A698B for ; Mon, 6 Apr 2009 09:16:35 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.58 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.58 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.019, 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 T8c042YNLGR4 for ; Mon, 6 Apr 2009 09:16:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: from bs.jck.com (ns.jck.com [209.187.148.211]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6468A3A67FC for ; Mon, 6 Apr 2009 09:16:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=localhost) by bs.jck.com with esmtp (Exim 4.34) id 1LqrVr-000J4O-Pe; Mon, 06 Apr 2009 12:17:32 -0400 Date: Mon, 06 Apr 2009 12:17:30 -0400 From: John C Klensin To: Brian E Carpenter , "Joel M. Halpern" Message-ID: <180C627E1B47B1ADCF4FC939@PST.JCK.COM> In-Reply-To: <49D924D2.80906@gmail.com> References: <9095EE5BC20C407BB9B043D6DA268B11@china.huawei.com> <2D6D09EF4262A274AF556633@eList-eXpress-LLC.local> <49D64A60.5060204@joelhalpern.com> <49D7E9EF.7030506@gmail.com> <49D82EF1.9090108@joelhalpern.com> <49D924D2.80906@gmail.com> X-Mailer: Mulberry/4.0.8 (Win32) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Cc: NomCom Discussion , James M Galvin Subject: Re: [ietf-nomcom] Ringers / Padding on Nominee list 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, 06 Apr 2009 16:16:35 -0000 --On Monday, April 06, 2009 09:38 +1200 Brian E Carpenter wrote: > Joel, > > I understand the need for flexibility. There needs to be an > escape clause for the NomCom if external events intervene. But > if there is any *vagueness* about the deadlines, bad things > can happen too. People will be more likely to defer their > comments until it's too late, and then complain that they were > ignored. > > Suppose the public list for Foobar AD contains Tweedledum and > Tweedledee, everyone sends in their comments, and three days > before the First IETF, the Nomcom announces that they have > both had to step down, and that the shortlist now consists > only of Humpty Dumpty. This would be a very bad situation, and > I believe we should write the rules to make it highly > unlikely. I can only see deadlines as a way to do that. Brian, The direction this thread has taken is one of the reasons I'm very sympathetic to Ted's comments at the plenary, which I construe as "it is wasteful and dangerous to keep doing this sort of fine-tuning of minor aspects of the process; we need to look at things more fundamentally instead". That may have been a little broader than what he had in mind, but what I'm about to suggest interacts strongly with one of his main points. Historically, there have been two assumptions built into the Nomcom model. I think we might have taken advantage of the first early on, but not recently. The second has not been used although I suspect there are occasions when it should have been. I think both should be preserved because difficult times are likely to make them more important than they have been in the past: (1) It is the responsibility of the Nomcom to find acceptable (and optimal) candidates. At _any_ time in the process, they should be able to conclude that someone who has not volunteered would be worth including, find that person, twist arms as needed, and then consider him or her on a par with (or even ahead of) those whose names were put forward earlier. You can't put a deadline or firm cutoff on that and have it work because a Nomcom could quite plausibly discover, very late in the process and after all of the intended comments were in, that it wasn't completely happy with the answers or with the nominees more generally and go off and do some targeted recruiting. An open list wouldn't help with that and, unless that is clear to all and the open list specifications were written very carefully, might interfere with it. The option of the Nomcom doing targeted recruiting is likely to become more important in difficult times because there may be many people who are unable or unwilling to volunteer who might, nonetheless, be good choices. That list includes not only those who are shy about becoming nominees or candidates but people who have been actively participating remotely who might be able to find the resources to attend and participate for a few years if they actually were selected. All things being equal, I'd prefer nominees who had been, e.g., interacting face to face with WGs to those who had not, but things are not equal and are likely to get less so --given the choice of a poor candidate with that exposure and a good one without it, the Nomcom should have as much flexibility about how it does the evaluation as possible. Kre's comment, although not precisely addressed to the sort of targeted recruiting I'm most concerned about, is part of the same issue. The Nomcom needs to be able to make the best choices possible rather than being overconstrained by rules. Otherwise, things will deteriorate toward a process by which questionnaires are scored in some mechanical way and the nominee with the highest score will become the candidate. Given a choice between that and a secret ballot conducted among all of the community members who are nomcom-eligible, I'd prefer the latter... and I really hate that idea. For better or worse, another corollary to the option of the Nomcom's doing active recruiting (in addition to "wait for volunteers" or "call for nominations" passive recruiting) is that, if there is only a single candidate for a position, it implies either (i) that candidate is so unambiguously outstanding that there is no question about the desirable outcome, or (ii) the Nomcom fell down on the job, or (iii) the job description is such that almost no one plausible is willing to do it (see (2) below). Note, in this regard, that we've had people returned to the IESG or IAB despite considerable controversy about their behavior. Often the people involved have appeared to have taken being re-selected as a mandate to continue and enhance the problematic behavior. Knowing that one was the only candidate and that the community had no choice could make that behavior pattern even worse -- exposure of that that information would be one of the downsides of opening up the candidate lists unless the Nomcom took the possibility as more pressure to actively recruit. The "treat someone who becomes a candidate but is then unable to serve as a vacancy" model raises similar issues, which are almost a corollary. If people have a reasonable good-faith belief that they will be able to serve and consider themselves otherwise appropriate, then I'd rather have them volunteer/ be nominated and to be able to decline at the end point without having to make public changes in internal company relationships, lack of support in a deteriorating economy, etc. If the plan is to require them to have a long-term commitment before volunteering or to risk having to be selected, appointed, and then immediately resigning, it is going to reduce the pool of volunteers/nominees, perhaps eliminating some people who ultimately would have been able to serve. Not good. (2) The Nomcom has the option of dealing with a "no good candidates for that position" situation by leaving it vacant and insisting that the relevant body rewrite the job description to make the position fill-able, if necessary by reorganizing itself. My specific concern here is that a number of IAB, IAOC, and IESG have gradually expanded in terms of the time commitment they require. I hope that the bodies involved, and the community more generally, can consider how to reverse that trend before we reach the point that people's willingness to be nominated and Nomcom decisions about them driven more by the availability of people who can devote most of their time to the IETF for two-four years or longer. But, if that buck gets passed to the Nomcom, I believe it is very important that the Nomcom be able to push back by not filling a position rather than making selections that they consider marginal or unacceptable. john From brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com Mon Apr 6 14:28:59 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 3CBF33A6866 for ; Mon, 6 Apr 2009 14:28:59 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.463 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.463 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.136, 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 STkTQeNOUwGN for ; Mon, 6 Apr 2009 14:28:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: from rv-out-0506.google.com (rv-out-0506.google.com [209.85.198.226]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7C4713A67D7 for ; Mon, 6 Apr 2009 14:28:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: by rv-out-0506.google.com with SMTP id k40so2022080rvb.49 for ; Mon, 06 Apr 2009 14:30:04 -0700 (PDT) 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=UEyBTs8sDN/3VTvaXfO3ZJkf0Vqq7IdHYw7amK8QtkU=; b=BXSGEX8G+OLImIhmtqgXb9XaRTTupJvQxBWQ/cRteX8bSaoGfUmJwzVve7X3ffKiym zSQAHvCT1E+dnYPfSUVcaAR+8vw6Moiue495al1+Riq+jIsod82hA4dgkvzb2UKdXHxE XDYphhGzMP3g9Cd4Uo81ltBlg0I2LDOBPBXVw= 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=e03EGvOGUtN/W6nqaPefayoG/KLP1PHGZKC958dYUbAhlwhiPqGhcj0rcb3URhm6Ew dOjELlE4Z5t4OUbot6XdiHl6SIAoH40BF+34JKHKvheU+YC3Ey6CMIluX8Regn21/bHV Mfv6Bus4PGSJFCz86Gs96wMHvO75RRCv7snEE= Received: by 10.140.161.11 with SMTP id j11mr1583898rve.114.1239053404547; Mon, 06 Apr 2009 14:30:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ?130.216.38.124? (stf-brian.sfac.auckland.ac.nz [130.216.38.124]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id b39sm3184rvf.39.2009.04.06.14.30.01 (version=SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Mon, 06 Apr 2009 14:30:03 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <49DA7455.4090802@gmail.com> Date: Tue, 07 Apr 2009 09:29:57 +1200 From: Brian E Carpenter Organization: University of Auckland User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.6 (Windows/20070728) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: John C Klensin References: <9095EE5BC20C407BB9B043D6DA268B11@china.huawei.com> <2D6D09EF4262A274AF556633@eList-eXpress-LLC.local> <49D64A60.5060204@joelhalpern.com> <49D7E9EF.7030506@gmail.com> <49D82EF1.9090108@joelhalpern.com> <49D924D2.80906@gmail.com> <180C627E1B47B1ADCF4FC939@PST.JCK.COM> In-Reply-To: <180C627E1B47B1ADCF4FC939@PST.JCK.COM> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: NomCom Discussion , James M Galvin Subject: Re: [ietf-nomcom] Ringers / Padding on Nominee list 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, 06 Apr 2009 21:28:59 -0000 On 2009-04-07 04:17, John C Klensin wrote: ... > The Nomcom needs to be able to make the best > choices possible rather than being overconstrained by rules. I completely agree. Overdesign will hurt us, and your message explains some of the ways this can happen. So there needs to be some sort of governing clause that gives NomCom discretion to vary the procedure when an unexpected event of any kind occurs. However, one consequence of publishing the list of willing nominees is that it will increase the community's expectation of visibility into NomCom procedure. Therefore, I still prefer that we set out the normal procedure, including deadlines and foreseeable exceptions, in an unambiguous way. Otherwise, the NomCom will find itself having to explain what it's doing in a lot more detail than in the past; I'd rather that only happens in response to exceptions. I guess I'm arguing for judicious use of SHOULD and MAY rather than MUST. Brian From john-ietf@jck.com Mon Apr 6 15:33:18 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 1E7CB3A6B39 for ; Mon, 6 Apr 2009 15:33:18 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.58 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.58 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.019, 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 D0woNq97LWXd for ; Mon, 6 Apr 2009 15:33:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: from bs.jck.com (ns.jck.com [209.187.148.211]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 108E63A67AE for ; Mon, 6 Apr 2009 15:33:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=localhost) by bs.jck.com with esmtp (Exim 4.34) id 1LqxOW-0003oG-TV; Mon, 06 Apr 2009 18:34:21 -0400 Date: Mon, 06 Apr 2009 18:34:20 -0400 From: John C Klensin To: Brian E Carpenter Message-ID: <219ACA8D0AD8EFA1A1044353@PST.JCK.COM> In-Reply-To: <49DA7455.4090802@gmail.com> References: <9095EE5BC20C407BB9B043D6DA268B11@china.huawei.com> <2D6D09EF4262A274AF556633@eList-eXpress-LLC.local> <49D64A60.5060204@joelhalpern.com> <49D7E9EF.7030506@gmail.com> <49D82EF1.9090108@joelhalpern.com> <49D924D2.80906@gmail.com> <180C627E1B47B1ADCF4FC939@PST.JCK.COM> <49DA7455.4090802@gmail.com> X-Mailer: Mulberry/4.0.8 (Win32) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Cc: NomCom Discussion , James M Galvin Subject: Re: [ietf-nomcom] Ringers / Padding on Nominee list 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, 06 Apr 2009 22:33:18 -0000 --On Tuesday, April 07, 2009 09:29 +1200 Brian E Carpenter wrote: > On 2009-04-07 04:17, John C Klensin wrote: > > ... >> The Nomcom needs to be able to make the best >> choices possible rather than being overconstrained by rules. > > I completely agree. Overdesign will hurt us, and your message > explains some of the ways this can happen. So there needs to be > some sort of governing clause that gives NomCom discretion to > vary the procedure when an unexpected event of any kind occurs. > > However, one consequence of publishing the list of willing > nominees is that it will increase the community's expectation > of visibility into NomCom procedure. Therefore, I still prefer > that we set out the normal procedure, including deadlines and > foreseeable exceptions, in an unambiguous way. Otherwise, the > NomCom will find itself having to explain what it's doing in a > lot more detail than in the past; I'd rather that only happens > in response to exceptions. > > I guess I'm arguing for judicious use of SHOULD and MAY rather > than MUST. And I'm arguing, first, for enough carefully-written text to set the expectations very carefully. I don't see that as incompatible with your suggestions. However, if the reason is that publishing the list is likely to create unreasonable expectations, I'd rather that we work on the expectations rather than making more rules. If nothing else, I've had too much experience --as I imagine many others on the list have-- with a list of foreseeable exceptions evolving in the minds of various folks into a comprehensive list of all possible exceptions... such that, i.e., anything else is treated as a process violation, not a permitted exception that didn't happen to be listed. From my point of view, that implies that a document should be clear about what expectations are reasonable and which are not and then give your foreseeable exceptions as examples of likely exceptions, but only as examples (and clearly identified as such). My other point is that, while I'm not inclined to try to stem the tide of enthusiasm for making the names public, I don't see it as entirely a good thing and hope that others can appreciate that we sacrifice some things, and create new risks, by going in that direction. john From narten@us.ibm.com Tue Apr 7 06:35:29 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 0DDB43A69CE for ; Tue, 7 Apr 2009 06:35:29 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.099 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.099 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.500, 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 wJGWJoNi3uTT for ; Tue, 7 Apr 2009 06:35:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: from e35.co.us.ibm.com (e35.co.us.ibm.com [32.97.110.153]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 43D5C3A6983 for ; Tue, 7 Apr 2009 06:35:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: from d03relay04.boulder.ibm.com (d03relay04.boulder.ibm.com [9.17.195.106]) by e35.co.us.ibm.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id n37DVZUn030833 for ; Tue, 7 Apr 2009 07:31:35 -0600 Received: from d03av02.boulder.ibm.com (d03av02.boulder.ibm.com [9.17.195.168]) by d03relay04.boulder.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/NCO v9.2) with ESMTP id n37DaG8s148540 for ; Tue, 7 Apr 2009 07:36:16 -0600 Received: from d03av02.boulder.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1]) by d03av02.boulder.ibm.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.13.3) with ESMTP id n37DaFm9012737 for ; Tue, 7 Apr 2009 07:36:16 -0600 Received: from cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com (sig-9-65-223-107.mts.ibm.com [9.65.223.107]) by d03av02.boulder.ibm.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id n37DaE58012581 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Tue, 7 Apr 2009 07:36:15 -0600 Received: from cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com (cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com [127.0.0.1]) by cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com (8.14.2/8.12.5) with ESMTP id n37DaCvS000765; Tue, 7 Apr 2009 09:36:13 -0400 Message-Id: <200904071336.n37DaCvS000765@cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com> To: "Joel M. Halpern" In-reply-to: <49D92931.6090702@joelhalpern.com> References: <20090220174517.76C3913B906E@newdev.eecs.harvard.edu> <4DB48A98040A7F85FC7609B8@eList-eXpress-LLC.local> <20090405162815.B41BD9A4725@odin.smetech.net> <49D8FF64.9040402@cisco.com> <37DAFF9A571843AD9C7486410906AB29@china.huawei.com> <49D91518.20601@cisco.com> <49D9267D.7050407@gmail.com> <49D92931.6090702@joelhalpern.com> Comments: In-reply-to "Joel M. Halpern" message dated "Sun, 05 Apr 2009 17:57:05 -0400." Date: Tue, 07 Apr 2009 09:36:12 -0400 From: Thomas Narten Cc: ietf-nomcom@ietf.org, James M Galvin 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: Tue, 07 Apr 2009 13:35:29 -0000 "Joel M. Halpern" writes: > While it looks like the random selection is mechanistic enough to leave > to the secretariat, in practice it is not. I agree. IMO, we should not burdon the previous year's chair with anything that requires real judgement and should be done by the chair for that year. We would be well-advised to have a clean break from one nomcom to the next in terms of responsibility/accountability. The last thing anyone should want is to have an incoming chair saddled with controversial decisions made before they were properly seated. Thomas From erosen@cisco.com Tue Apr 7 08:11:59 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 936F13A6860 for ; Tue, 7 Apr 2009 08:11:59 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.562 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.562 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.038, 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 BKuIStm7d4BP for ; Tue, 7 Apr 2009 08:11:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: from rtp-iport-1.cisco.com (rtp-iport-1.cisco.com [64.102.122.148]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AB47E3A6818 for ; Tue, 7 Apr 2009 08:11:52 -0700 (PDT) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.39,338,1235952000"; d="scan'208";a="41162354" Received: from rtp-dkim-1.cisco.com ([64.102.121.158]) by rtp-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 07 Apr 2009 15:12:58 +0000 Received: from rtp-core-1.cisco.com (rtp-core-1.cisco.com [64.102.124.12]) by rtp-dkim-1.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id n37FCwC2019956; Tue, 7 Apr 2009 11:12:58 -0400 Received: from erosen-linux.cisco.com (erosen-linux.cisco.com [161.44.70.34]) by rtp-core-1.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id n37FCwpb004165; Tue, 7 Apr 2009 15:12:58 GMT Received: from erosen-linux (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by erosen-linux.cisco.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id n37FCwli022060; Tue, 7 Apr 2009 11:12:58 -0400 To: Russ Housley In-reply-to: Your message of Sun, 05 Apr 2009 12:16:44 -0400. <20090405161647.F24819A4721@odin.smetech.net> Date: Tue, 07 Apr 2009 11:12:58 -0400 Message-ID: <22059.1239117178@erosen-linux> From: Eric Rosen DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; l=768; t=1239117178; x=1239981178; c=relaxed/simple; s=rtpdkim1001; h=Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; d=cisco.com; i=erosen@cisco.com; z=From:=20Eric=20Rosen=20 |Subject:=20Re=3A=20[ietf-nomcom]=20Guidance=20on=20the=20l iaison=20role=20 |Sender:=20 |To:=20Russ=20Housley=20; bh=iahU6+GXQSuJjkqVyaWl/ASh7DnG9nj3ktg4+LXkluc=; b=qtSHHB2AnMyghjPT25buyrmtq+YS57TxpCP0SY0c59lqgAl0nZE8/4Clfz Mv6U3F5/LJh2UBKtRHD9DtjjQRoTrEisBzOr9xJ7Q3poxWfFZXsOLV5cBSGa L+VepR7d1Z; Authentication-Results: rtp-dkim-1; header.From=erosen@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/rtpdkim1001 verified; ); Cc: NomCom Discussion Subject: Re: [ietf-nomcom] Guidance on the liaison role X-BeenThere: ietf-nomcom@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list Reply-To: erosen@cisco.com 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, 07 Apr 2009 15:11:59 -0000 > if everyone knows the instructions, then any attempt > to participate in a manner that goes too far will be obvious to all > NomCom members. And what recourse do they have? Can they reject a liaison who doesn't follow the rules? > the liaison is providing a high-level report card on the > NomCom to the confirming body. Then the liaison from the confirming body has effective veto power (or at least the threat thereof) over the nomcom's results. This doesn't seem to provide much motivation for the liaison to follow the rules. In the event of controversy about a particular nominee, the liaison's report to the confirming body about the fairness of the process might just reflect the liaison's position on the controversy. From jmh@joelhalpern.com Tue Apr 7 08:24:03 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 10B053A6924 for ; Tue, 7 Apr 2009 08:24:03 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.467 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.467 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.132, 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 SqhGsgDXsw8D for ; Tue, 7 Apr 2009 08:24:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.mail.tigertech.net (hermes.mail.tigertech.net [64.62.209.72]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4A17F3A6860 for ; Tue, 7 Apr 2009 08:24:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hermes.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 29DBE430196; Tue, 7 Apr 2009 08:25:09 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at hermes.tigertech.net Received: from [10.10.10.100] (pool-71-161-52-88.clppva.btas.verizon.net [71.161.52.88]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by hermes.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7FAA8430210; Tue, 7 Apr 2009 08:25:08 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <49DB7051.6010907@joelhalpern.com> Date: Tue, 07 Apr 2009 11:25:05 -0400 From: "Joel M. Halpern" User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.21 (Windows/20090302) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: erosen@cisco.com References: <22059.1239117178@erosen-linux> In-Reply-To: <22059.1239117178@erosen-linux> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: NomCom Discussion Subject: Re: [ietf-nomcom] Guidance on the liaison role 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, 07 Apr 2009 15:24:03 -0000 Actually,l the chair has a number of recourses if liaisons misbehave. First and foremost is conversation. Most mis-behavior is inadvertent, and can be dealt with by talking to folks. If the liaison continues to behave inappropriately, then the chair can contact the liaising body. The liaison can be replaced. If necessary, the chair can exclude the liaison from the email and phone discussions until the problem is resolved. Heck, if the chair doesn't unilaterally do what is needed, members can talk to the chair, etc... No, the above is not perfect. No solution is perfect. If the committee and chair can not stand up for themselves, and if the advisor does not see and act on the problem, and if the ISoC liaison (who is also tasked to watch for procedural violations) does not act, then yes, the liaisons will have too much influence. That's a lot of failures all at once. If that much is wrong, new rules will not help. None of this requires that we write down specific new rules or remedies. Yours, Joel Eric Rosen wrote: >> if everyone knows the instructions, then any attempt >> to participate in a manner that goes too far will be obvious to all >> NomCom members. > > And what recourse do they have? Can they reject a liaison who doesn't > follow the rules? > >> the liaison is providing a high-level report card on the >> NomCom to the confirming body. > > Then the liaison from the confirming body has effective veto power (or at > least the threat thereof) over the nomcom's results. This doesn't seem to > provide much motivation for the liaison to follow the rules. > > In the event of controversy about a particular nominee, the liaison's report > to the confirming body about the fairness of the process might just reflect > the liaison's position on the controversy. > > > > _______________________________________________ > ietf-nomcom mailing list > ietf-nomcom@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-nomcom > From Andrew.Lange@alcatel-lucent.com Tue Apr 7 09:13:56 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 387B93A67A6 for ; Tue, 7 Apr 2009 09:13:56 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.598 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=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 nmpdeh48xciD for ; Tue, 7 Apr 2009 09:13:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: from audl953.usa.alcatel.com (audl953.usa.alcatel.com [143.209.238.162]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9B5A53A67A4 for ; Tue, 7 Apr 2009 09:13:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: from usdalsbhs01.ad3.ad.alcatel.com (usdalsbhs01.usa.alcatel.com [172.22.216.19]) by audl953.usa.alcatel.com (ALCANET) with ESMTP id n37GELlI011299; Tue, 7 Apr 2009 11:14:39 -0500 Received: from uscaln-vmagret.ad3.ad.alcatel.com ([172.22.216.4]) by usdalsbhs01.ad3.ad.alcatel.com over TLS secured channel with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Tue, 7 Apr 2009 11:14:21 -0500 Message-Id: From: Andrew Lange To: "Joel M. Halpern" In-Reply-To: <49D8DBA3.5020402@joelhalpern.com> Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=Apple-Mail-10-968138082 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v930.3) Date: Tue, 7 Apr 2009 09:14:19 -0700 References: <20090405161647.F24819A4721@odin.smetech.net> <49D8DBA3.5020402@joelhalpern.com> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.930.3) X-OriginalArrivalTime: 07 Apr 2009 16:14:21.0925 (UTC) FILETIME=[E9551150:01C9B79B] X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.64 on 143.209.238.34 Cc: NomCom Discussion Subject: Re: [ietf-nomcom] Guidance on the liaison role 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, 07 Apr 2009 16:13:56 -0000 --Apple-Mail-10-968138082 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I would also like to add one caution, and a comment. The caution: We're all engineers and we are prone to over-prescribing behaviors, as exact clarity is required in the computer systems we build. At the end, this is a human process, and much is in the hands of the individual liaisons, nomcom chair, and nomcom members. This is the way it should be, we cannot precisely dictate everything that comes up. Attempts to do so can result in rules clashes when an unforeseen consequence comes up. Ultimately, operating process in the nomcom is governed by the chair, with the former chair and, to some degree, ISOC liaison as a check. The comment: The individual NomCom may want something slightly different from their liaisons. This is up to the Chair and voting members, and allows adaption. The "rules" below are more "guidelines" or a "default rule set." Perhaps this is covered in item #2 in "provide information as requested" Andrew On Apr 5, 2009, at 9:26 AM, Joel M. Halpern wrote: > There are two points taht I would (and did) add. > A) The Liaison is permitted to provide factual information for nomcom > discussions that the liaison believes will help those discussions. > This > goes beyond just answering questions, as sometimes the nomcom will not > realize there are questions it needs to ask. > B) The liaison is encouraged to use the input tools to provide > personal > input to the nomcom. > > Yours, > Joel > > Russ Housley wrote: > > One message that cam through very clearly at plenary was that the > > community wanted clarity on the role of the liaisons the ISOC BoT, > IAB, > > IESG, and possibly in the future from the IAOC. > > > > This has been a topic of much debate in the past. The IESG > decided to > > address it for their own liaison by drafting instructions to their > > liaison before the NomCom was seated. The IESG plans to do the same > > again this year. The IESG shared these instructions openly. The > idea > > was simple, if everyone knows the instructions, then any attempt to > > participate in a manner that goes too far will be obvious to all > NomCom > > members. > > > > So, to get the discussion going, I'm posting the instructions that > the > > IESG gave to the liaison to the current NomCom. > > > > Russ > > > > = = = = = = = = = = > > > > These apply when the liaison is speaking to NomCom in his liaison > role. > > The person who fills the liaison role may also provide personal > feedback > > to NomCom but only through communication channels available to > general > > IETF participants (e.g. the feedback web form). When interacting > with > > the NomCom through liaison channels, the liaison will represent the > > views of the IESG rather than personal opinion. > > > > We came up with 4 guidelines and 1 meta-guideline: > > > > 1. Neutrality test. When the Liaison is speaking to NomCom in his > > liaison role it should not be possible for the NomCom to > determine > > the Liaison's personal opinion about a particular candidate, > based > > on statements by the Liaison. This involves sticking to facts > and > > avoiding personal opinions. > > > > 2. Follow NomCom Liaison Rules in RFC 3777, which includes: > > > > Liaisons are expected to represent the views of their > respective > > organizations during the deliberations of the committee. They > > should provide information as requested or when they believe it > > would be helpful to the committee. > > > > 3. Act in the best interest of the IETF. > > > > 4. The IESG doesn't want to be a self-selecting body, so the liaison > > should take care to avoid actions that might produce such a > result. > > > > Meta-guideline: > > > > When any of the four guidelines are in conflict, the liaison will > use > > his best judgment to resolve the conflict. Guideline 1 should > override > > guideline 3 when they are in conflict. > > > > _______________________________________________ > > 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 > --Apple-Mail-10-968138082 Content-Type: text/html; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I would also like to add one = caution, and a comment.

The caution: We're all = engineers and we are prone to over-prescribing behaviors, as exact = clarity is required in the computer systems we build.  At the end, = this is a human process, and much is in the hands of the individual = liaisons, nomcom chair, and nomcom members.  This is the way it = should be, we cannot precisely dictate everything that comes up. =  Attempts to do so can result in rules clashes when = an unforeseen consequence comes up.  Ultimately, = operating process in the nomcom is governed by the chair, with the = former chair and, to some degree, ISOC liaison as a = check.

The comment: The individual NomCom may = want something slightly different from their liaisons.  This is up = to the Chair and voting members, and allows adaption.  The "rules" = below are more "guidelines" or a "default rule set."   Perhaps this = is covered in item #2 in "provide information as = requested"

Andrew

On = Apr 5, 2009, at 9:26 AM, Joel M. Halpern wrote:

=

There are = two points taht I would (and did) add.
A) The Liaison is permitted = to provide factual information for nomcom
discussions that the = liaison believes will help those discussions. This
goes beyond just = answering questions, as sometimes the nomcom will not
realize there = are questions it needs to ask.
B) The liaison is encouraged to use = the input tools to provide personal
input to the nomcom.

= Yours,
Joel

Russ Housley wrote:
> One message that = cam through very clearly at plenary was that the
> community = wanted clarity on the role of the liaisons the ISOC BoT, IAB,
> = IESG, and possibly in the future from the IAOC.
>
> This = has been a topic of much debate in the past.  The IESG decided = to
> address it for their own liaison by drafting instructions to = their
> liaison before the NomCom was seated.  The IESG = plans to do the same
> again this year.  The IESG shared = these instructions openly.  The idea
> was simple, if = everyone knows the instructions, then any attempt to
> = participate in a manner that goes too far will be obvious to all = NomCom
> members.
>
> So, to get the discussion = going, I'm posting the instructions that the
> IESG gave to the = liaison to the current NomCom.
>
> Russ
>
> = =3D =3D =3D =3D =3D =3D =3D =3D =3D =3D
>
> These apply = when the liaison is speaking to NomCom in his liaison role.
> The = person who fills the liaison role may also provide personal feedback
= > to NomCom but only through communication channels available to = general
> IETF participants (e.g. the feedback web form).  = When interacting with
> the NomCom through liaison channels, the = liaison will represent the
> views of the IESG rather than = personal opinion.
>
> We came up with 4 guidelines and 1 = meta-guideline:
>
> 1. Neutrality test.  When the = Liaison is speaking to NomCom in his
>    liaison = role it should not be possible for the NomCom to determine
= >    the Liaison's personal opinion about a particular = candidate, based
>    on statements by the = Liaison.  This involves sticking to facts and
= >    avoiding personal opinions.
>
> 2. = Follow NomCom Liaison Rules in RFC 3777, which includes:
>
= >      Liaisons are expected to represent = the views of their respective
>      = organizations during the deliberations of the committee.  They
= >      should provide information as = requested or when they believe it
>      = would be helpful to the committee.
>
> 3. Act in the best = interest of the IETF.
>
> 4. The IESG doesn't want to be a = self-selecting body, so the liaison
>    should = take care to avoid actions that might produce such a result.
= >
> Meta-guideline:
>
> When any of the four = guidelines are in conflict, the liaison will use
> his best = judgment to resolve the conflict.  Guideline 1 should override
= > guideline 3 when they are in conflict.
>
> = _______________________________________________
> ietf-nomcom = mailing list
> ietf-nomcom@ietf.org
> = https://www.iet= f.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-nomcom
>
= _______________________________________________
ietf-nomcom mailing = list
ietf-nomcom@ietf.org
https://www.iet= f.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-nomcom

=

= --Apple-Mail-10-968138082-- From Andrew.Lange@alcatel-lucent.com Tue Apr 7 09:23:06 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 BB9643A6A58 for ; Tue, 7 Apr 2009 09:23:06 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.598 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=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 mHsrQZM+UxWg for ; Tue, 7 Apr 2009 09:23:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: from audl952.usa.alcatel.com (audl952.usa.alcatel.com [143.209.238.159]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BC8F93A682D for ; Tue, 7 Apr 2009 09:22:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: from usdalsbhs01.ad3.ad.alcatel.com (usdalsbhs01.usa.alcatel.com [172.22.216.19]) by audl952.usa.alcatel.com (ALCANET) with ESMTP id n37GNuS5013966; Tue, 7 Apr 2009 11:23:56 -0500 Received: from uscaln-vmagret.ad3.ad.alcatel.com ([172.22.216.4]) by usdalsbhs01.ad3.ad.alcatel.com over TLS secured channel with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Tue, 7 Apr 2009 11:23:55 -0500 Message-Id: <5EC5339E-6896-48C9-B0AB-54D315DE5A9C@alcatel-lucent.com> From: Andrew Lange To: "Brian E Carpenter" In-Reply-To: <49DA7455.4090802@gmail.com> Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=Apple-Mail-11-968712460 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v930.3) Date: Tue, 7 Apr 2009 09:23:53 -0700 References: <9095EE5BC20C407BB9B043D6DA268B11@china.huawei.com><2D6D09EF4262A274AF556633@eList-eXpress-LLC.local><49D64A60.5060204@joelhalpern.com> <49D7E9EF.7030506@gmail.com><49D82EF1.9090108@joelhalpern.com> <49D924D2.80906@gmail.com><180C627E1B47B1ADCF4FC939@PST.JCK.COM> <49DA7455.4090802@gmail.com> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.930.3) X-OriginalArrivalTime: 07 Apr 2009 16:23:56.0096 (UTC) FILETIME=[3F909C00:01C9B79D] X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.64 on 143.209.238.34 Cc: NomCom Discussion , James M Galvin Subject: Re: [ietf-nomcom] Ringers / Padding on Nominee list 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, 07 Apr 2009 16:23:06 -0000 --Apple-Mail-11-968712460 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The procedure that has been used in the past, when mentioning deadlines in the process has been one which has allowed some flexibility. That has been: "To receive full consideration for the position submit nominations by X", or "To receive full consideration of your comments on candidate Y, submit comments by Z." This provides a reasonable expectation of a deadline, and it generally respected. It also give the nomcom flexibility in rejecting a candidate due to something too late to be practical, such as a nomination 5 days before the deadline, or considering additional important information that may come in late. If things are submitted after the deadline, don't expect them to be considered, but the nomcom may if it so chooses. Andrew On Apr 6, 2009, at 2:29 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote: > On 2009-04-07 04:17, John C Klensin wrote: > > ... > > The Nomcom needs to be able to make the best > > choices possible rather than being overconstrained by rules. > > I completely agree. Overdesign will hurt us, and your message > explains some of the ways this can happen. So there needs to be > some sort of governing clause that gives NomCom discretion to > vary the procedure when an unexpected event of any kind occurs. > > However, one consequence of publishing the list of willing nominees > is that it will increase the community's expectation of visibility > into NomCom procedure. Therefore, I still prefer that we set out the > normal procedure, including deadlines and foreseeable exceptions, > in an unambiguous way. Otherwise, the NomCom will find itself having > to explain what it's doing in a lot more detail than in the past; > I'd rather that only happens in response to exceptions. > > I guess I'm arguing for judicious use of SHOULD and MAY rather than > MUST. > > Brian > _______________________________________________ > ietf-nomcom mailing list > ietf-nomcom@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-nomcom > --Apple-Mail-11-968712460 Content-Type: text/html; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable The procedure that has been = used in the past, when mentioning deadlines in the process has been one = which has allowed some flexibility.  That has been:  "To = receive full consideration for the position submit nominations by X", or = "To receive full consideration of your comments on candidate Y, submit = comments by Z."  This provides a reasonable expectation of a = deadline, and it generally respected. It also give the nomcom = flexibility in rejecting a candidate due to something too late to be = practical, such as a nomination 5 days before the deadline, or = considering additional important information that may come in late. =  If things are submitted after the deadline, don't expect them to = be considered, but the nomcom may if it so = chooses.

Andrew

On Apr 6, = 2009, at 2:29 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:

=

On = 2009-04-07 04:17, John C Klensin wrote:

...
> The Nomcom = needs to be able to make the best
> choices possible rather than = being overconstrained by rules.

I completely agree. Overdesign = will hurt us, and your message
explains some of the ways this can = happen. So there needs to be
some sort of governing clause that = gives NomCom discretion to
vary the procedure when an unexpected = event of any kind occurs.

However, one consequence of = publishing the list of willing nominees
is that it will increase the = community's expectation of visibility
into NomCom procedure. = Therefore, I still prefer that we set out the
normal procedure, = including deadlines and foreseeable exceptions,
in an unambiguous = way. Otherwise, the NomCom will find itself having
to explain what = it's doing in a lot more detail than in the past;
I'd rather that = only happens in response to exceptions.

I guess I'm arguing for = judicious use of SHOULD and MAY rather than
MUST.

=     Brian
= _______________________________________________
ietf-nomcom mailing = list
ietf-nomcom@ietf.org
https://www.iet= f.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-nomcom

=

= --Apple-Mail-11-968712460--