Hi Adrian
It depends on the definition of politicking. In this, umm, draft, there's this
definition:
"An organized campaign that seeks selection of a particular nominee"
So you can't promote Dave all by yourself. You'll have to get a bunch of people
sending over-the-top opinions ("Dave will save the world as AD. Electing him
ensures a cure for cancer and world peace over IPv6"). It's this organized
effort that gets reported. It is then up to the NomCom to consider this, just
like any other piece of information. If they conclude that this is an attempt
to sabotage Dave's candidacy, they can choose to ignore it. OTOH they can
choose to wonder why Dave generates such animosity, that people go to all this
trouble.
Of course, if they notice that a dozen people working for the same company send
in such opinions about Dave, they may choose to ignore all opinions from that
group.
You may be right. This is looking more investigative than the NomCom can be
expected to do.
Yoav
On Jul 18, 2010, at 1:58 PM, Adrian Farrel wrote:
> Hi Dave,
>
> I read the Summary
> (http://www.bbiw.net/specifications/IETF-Nomcom-Process-Summary.html) -
> timing being short at the moment. Looks mainly very good.
>
> In Section 5.2 I find...
>
>> RECOMMENDATION -- Politicking
>> - Any evidence of politicking should be reported to Nomcom and should be
>> treated as a significant, negative factor when considering the nominee who
>> is intended to benefit from the politicking.
>
> It may be that my mind is unnecessarily devious, but it seems to me that
> this assumes that either no-one will execute a bluff, or that Nomcom will
> detect it. That is, if I wish to ensure that Dave Crocker does not become
> the next Foo Area Director, I could engineer a campaign of lobbying in his
> support. According to your recommendation, this would have a significant
> negative impact.
>
> IMHO, the actions of others have absolutely zero relevance to the competence
> of an individual performing their IETF management tasks. NomCom should
> consider only material facts (positive or negative) and should not be
> distracted by any politicking or lobbying.
>
> I note that this is probably a simplistic statement since the line between
> sending your fair and honest opinion that Dave would be good or bad as the
> Foo AD can only truly be construed as not lobbying if you are entirely
> unconcerned as to whether the final selection matches your own preferences
> and opinions.
>
> It may also make a difference if it is the candidate who is organising or
> instigating the lobbying on his own behalf. But determining this is likely
> to require some form of court! So perhaps it is best to simply stick to the
> candidates' competences, and to interviews advised by feedback from the
> community.
>
> Cheers,
> Adrian
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Dave CROCKER" <d...@dcrocker.net>
> To: "IETF Discussion" <ietf@ietf.org>
> Sent: Saturday, July 17, 2010 4:48 PM
> Subject: Nomcom Enhancements: Improving the IETF leadership selection
> process
>
>
>> Folks,
>>
>> Nomcom has been an integral part of the IETF for nearly 20 years.
>>
>> A number of us have been developing a set of recommendations designed to
>> adapt the Nomcom process to better match current realities of the IETF
>> community. The draft has progressed far enough to call for public
>> consideration.
>>
>> Some of the proposal's recommendations require no changes in formal rules.
>> They
>> can be adopted immediately, possibly by the current Nomcom, should it so
>> choose.
>> Others require a formal development and approval cycle.
>>
>> At:
>>
>> <http://www.bbiw.net/recent.html#nomcom2010>
>>
>> there is a copy of the Full Proposal, and a Summary which primarily
>> contains just the recommendations.
>>
>>
>> The proposal's Abstract is:
>>
>>> Every year the IETF's Nominating Committee (Nomcom) reviews and selects
>>> half
>>> of the IETF's leadership on the IESG, IAB and IAOC/Trust. In the 18 years
>>> since the inception of the Nomcom process, the Internet industry and the
>>> IETF
>>> have gone through many changes in funding, participation and focus, but
>>> not
>>> in the basic formation, structure or operation of Nomcom. This paper
>>> explores
>>> challenges that have emerged in the conduct of Nomcom activities,
>>> particularly due to changing IETF demographics. The paper reviews the
>>> nature,
>>> causes and consequences of these challenges, and proposes a number of
>>> specific changes. The changes provide better communication of Nomcom
>>> institutional memory, enhance Nomcom membership expertise, and produce
>>> stronger confidentiality and etiquette practices among Nomcom
>>> participants.
>>> Some changes require formal modification to Nomcom rules; others can be
>>> adopted immediately.
>>
>>
>> Please feel free to discuss the proposal with any of the authors or folks
>> listed
>> in the Acknowledgments section, or on this list.
>>
>>
>> d/
>> --
>>
>> Dave Crocker
>> Brandenburg InternetWorking
>> bbiw.net
>>
>> --
>>
>> Dave Crocker
>> Brandenburg InternetWorking
>> bbiw.net
>> _______________________________________________
>> Ietf mailing list
>> Ietf@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ietf mailing list
> Ietf@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
>
> Scanned by Check Point Total Security Gateway.
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
