I have been a bit under the weather and responding to some of the
emails. I hope to catch up in the next couple of days.
On 3/16/2008 1:56 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> Hi Lakshimnath, just a few notes and queries...
>
> On 2008-03-16 16:10, Lakshminath Dondeti wrote:
> ...
>> * Nominee lists should be made public. In fact, other selection
>> processes within the IETF make the candidate lists public and so it is
>> time we let go of this in the nomcom context. The case against is
>> fairly weak at this point in time.
>
> As I recall, this was discussed extensively before 3777 (and before
> 2727) and opinions were so evenly split that the only possible
> conclusion was "no consensus for change". So we'll need to see if
> opinions have changed...
>
> (My opinion: on the occasions when I was a candidate, I would
> have had no problem with it being made public. But the tricky part
> is at what stage the list of candidates is considered stable
> enough to be published.)
As Ole noted, we have crossed this bridge in some cases within the IETF
already. I understand Melinda's concern about the whole process
beginning to look like elections, but I think this would be for the
better. We can keep everything else pretty much the same, publish the
nominees lists and take away the complexity within the feedback
collection process. The positive side effects (in fact, these would be
my goals) are that we will get more nominees and more feedback, on balance.
As it stands now, we make the lists pretty much public (by casting a
wide net as the current nomcom has done and as some of the past nomcoms
have done), but they are not public until after the nominations are
closed. There are also a few people who want the list of nominees for
one or more areas and we say no, for obvious reasons.
>
>> * Nominees are required to publish a statement for public consumption;
>> in fact, I would go further and require making some of the information
>> that normally goes into a typical questionnaire response public.
>
> I think that depends completely on the previous point.
Yes.
>
>> * The nomcom in the course of its operation may collect any type of
>> information and all that is for nomcom's eyes only. The nomcom shall
>> only provide testimony to the confirmation body based on that information.
>>
>> * Members of the community may contact any nomcom member and ask to
>> anonymize their feedback; nominees cannot provide anonymous feedback on
>> other nominees for the same position.
>>
>> * Non voting members may share and assert the opinions of the bodies
>> they represent, at will. All personal opinions shall be shared on a
>> pull-basis, initiated by the voting members or the chair.
>>
>> * The nomcom chair should not share personal opinions on candidates. It
>
> To be clear, do you mean the chair should not share his or her
> personal opinions?
Yeah. I am ok with leaving this to the chair though, if that is better.
>
>> is advisable to not share opinions even on a pull-basis.
>> The chair's role is to ensure that the nomcom voting members consider
>> all opinions from the community.
>>
>> * The confirmation bodies shall not receive any verbatim information
>> pertaining to the nomcom (either information collected by the nomcom or
>> generated during the nomcom process).
>
> I think that's a pointless restriction. In fact I would see a positive
> benefit in the nomcom's "testimony" including extracts from community
> feedback. There's no point in forcing the nomcom to perform an
> exercise in paraphrase. (Any such extracts should be anonymous,
> of course.)
My worry is that verbatim text may leak information about who provided
them. Some of us have unique styles in writing. Anyway, that's my opinion.
>
>> * The confirmation bodies are to be provided testimony on the selection
>> of each candidate. The testimony shall include the nature of
>> information collection and the debates; it may include a summary of
>> feedback and a characterization of the the strength of support for the
>> candidate within the community and the nomcom.
>>
>> * Confirmation bodies may base their decision on information not
>> available to the nomcom. They are encouraged to share information on
>> nominees with the nomcom and contribute to the timely completion of the
>> nomcom process.
>>
>> * Confirmation bodies must inform the nomcom of their decision within 4
>> weeks of receipt of the first communication from the nomcom with the
>> names of the candidates and the mandatory information to be included in
>> the testimony. If there is no response, the candidates are assumed to
>> be confirmed.
>
> The rules currently say
> "The completion of the process of confirming the candidates is due
> within 1 month."
> I can see an advantage in making that more precise, as you suggest.
> But I don't like the default exit - if a confirming body doesn't
> respond, I believe that should trigger a rather uncomfortable blowback
> towards the confirming body. Otherwise we are setting them up to
> abstain when there is a contentious case.
The current text on interim appointments says this: "Third, the
confirming body has two weeks from the day it is
notified of a candidate to reject the candidate, otherwise the
candidate is assumed to have been confirmed."
regards,
Lakshminath
>
> Brian
>
_______________________________________________
IETF mailing list
IETF@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
