Re: Publicizing IETF nominee lists [Fwd: Last Call: draft-dawkins-nomcom-openlist (Nominating Committee Process: Open Disclosure of Willing Nominees) to BCP]
On Jun 11, 2009, at 11:45 AM, Bob Hinden wrote: Joe, 1) exposing the full list to the entire community invites lobbying the nomcom This probably already happens to some extent, but do we really want to encourage this? It's not clear this will lead to more lobbying than we have now. I think lobbying happens a lot now and is driven by the candidate him/ herself, or the many people who get the "secret" lists. I think it would be more balanced if everyone knew. Belated, I too agree that the change to publicizing nominee list is a better way for the community. I would add that the current system gives a greater ability to comment on candidates to the leadership (IAB/IESG/WG Chairs) because they get the many of the "secret" nomcom candidate lists. well, the names they got were also padded up for the "protection" purpose, and the padding caused some confusions too. The nomcom might get broader feedback if the lists are open. Bob well said. Lixia ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Publicizing IETF nominee lists [Fwd: Last Call: draft-dawkins-nomcom-openlist (Nominating Committee Process: Open Disclosure of Willing Nominees) to BCP]
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 > Again, I agree that this is better for the Nomcom. The questions are: > > 1- is this better for the pool of applicants > or does being on a public list provide > a reason not to offer to serve? There is also the opposite effect--being nominated is an honor which is removed if the list is kept secret. You will probably see the two offset one another. Further, trying to account for every possible psychological reaction, and wind around it, is eventually going to be an impossible task. > 2- is this better for the IETF as a whole > does the Nomcom actually come to a > better decision as a result? I believe so. > I've shown specific impact to #1 above. > > The Nomcom does NOT select the best person for each position. They > select the best person _available_, using a set criteria that at least > partly bias their decision to avoid controversy (what if *all* the > selected nominees were from Canada in one year?), as influenced by > whatever lobbying occurs to re-bias that decision. > > Making the list public changes all these factors, but does not clearly > make the decision more reliable when considered as a whole. IMHO, it does make the decision more reliable, simply because the publicity of the list encourages those who have something to say to actually say it. If you see the complete list, and feel you know someone who would do better than anyone there, then you are more likely to nominate them, than to nominate people blindly. Lack of information is being much more of a hinder than too much information at the moment. :-) Russ -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iEYEARECAAYFAkoyiR0ACgkQER27sUhU9OSXtACePMTqVGkQGeVEk1/n0ueWzG4R HCYAnR1TX4i2QDOUEDM1k5BxvEeHUWZL =CWgt -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Publicizing IETF nominee lists [Fwd: Last Call: draft-dawkins-nomcom-openlist (Nominating Committee Process: Open Disclosure of Willing Nominees) to BCP]
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 > If everyone knew, there would be more lobbying since there would be more > people participating. I doubt the direct or secret-list lobbying would > wane much as a result. I don't think you'll get any more lobbying than you get now. The point of the nomcom being people, rather than a simple vote, is to filter out this sort of lobbying, because it's going to happen either way. The question is: Is the nomcom better at filtering out lobbying, or failures to get effective feedback because we're trying to keep something "secret?" After serving on the nomcom three times, I can easily say more feedback is better, and I'd rather work at weeding out lobbying--which I must do anyway--than to try and fix lack of feedback, or make "educated guesses." :-) Russ -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iEYEARECAAYFAkoyhMwACgkQER27sUhU9OSaDwCeLDMpVbow0eu1KL4pTjW1QV+i BxQAn3wRm989N6YmWNivYmcnGoNJ+G9g =YxIJ -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Publicizing IETF nominee lists [Fwd: Last Call: draft-dawkins-nomcom-openlist (Nominating Committee Process: Open Disclosure of Willing Nominees) to BCP]
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Russ White wrote: >> If everyone knew, there would be more lobbying since there would be more >> people participating. I doubt the direct or secret-list lobbying would >> wane much as a result. > > I don't think you'll get any more lobbying than you get now. The point > of the nomcom being people, rather than a simple vote, is to filter out > this sort of lobbying, because it's going to happen either way. Having only the Nomcom decide amplifies lobbying, because the effort can be concentrated on a small set of voters. A similar effect happened last year in the US when the effect of a popular vote was insufficient to select a Democratic party nominee. Rather than lobbying the general public, effort was focused on "superdelagates" whose vote was not tied to the general public. (yes, this is simplified, but I hope the point is taken). > The question is: Is the nomcom better at filtering out lobbying, or > failures to get effective feedback because we're trying to keep > something "secret?" After serving on the nomcom three times, I can > easily say more feedback is better, and I'd rather work at weeding out > lobbying--which I must do anyway--than to try and fix lack of feedback, > or make "educated guesses." Again, I agree that this is better for the Nomcom. The questions are: 1- is this better for the pool of applicants or does being on a public list provide a reason not to offer to serve? 2- is this better for the IETF as a whole does the Nomcom actually come to a better decision as a result? I've shown specific impact to #1 above. The Nomcom does NOT select the best person for each position. They select the best person _available_, using a set criteria that at least partly bias their decision to avoid controversy (what if *all* the selected nominees were from Canada in one year?), as influenced by whatever lobbying occurs to re-bias that decision. Making the list public changes all these factors, but does not clearly make the decision more reliable when considered as a whole. Joe -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iEYEARECAAYFAkoyhxoACgkQE5f5cImnZrv/mQCg5m2yuarYx+28rf+Dc0+jy6Fd rGEAoJhq7/L3mfk88ginyXZNQTSyd50T =ufTe -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Publicizing IETF nominee lists [Fwd: Last Call: draft-dawkins-nomcom-openlist (Nominating Committee Process: Open Disclosure of Willing Nominees) to BCP]
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 I do not debate the utility to the Nomcom of this change. I believe it comes with a cost, and I do not agree that it is a simple decision. I do not agree that the Nomcom is the only party here worth consideration. Joe Stephen Kent wrote: > Joe, > > Having served on NOMCOM more than once, and having been solicited for > inputs every year, I much prefer publishing the names of folks have > consented to be considered for IAB and IESG positions. The addition of > "ringers" to lists that are sent out (to hide the identities of the true > candidates) wastes the time of a lot of folks who are asked to provide > feedback on these non-candidates. It also means that someone who is a > real candidate may not receive feedback because people assume the > individual is a ringer! > > Steve -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iEYEARECAAYFAkoxo8kACgkQE5f5cImnZrtsewCeLOjG5iIYRgfDCbSHxiVw/GE1 ZFUAn39X8Z3OPmAm8lSFgdP/2AAwtPjY =8ZBh -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Publicizing IETF nominee lists [Fwd: Last Call: draft-dawkins-nomcom-openlist (Nominating Committee Process: Open Disclosure of Willing Nominees) to BCP]
Joe, Having served on NOMCOM more than once, and having been solicited for inputs every year, I much prefer publishing the names of folks have consented to be considered for IAB and IESG positions. The addition of "ringers" to lists that are sent out (to hide the identities of the true candidates) wastes the time of a lot of folks who are asked to provide feedback on these non-candidates. It also means that someone who is a real candidate may not receive feedback because people assume the individual is a ringer! Steve ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Publicizing IETF nominee lists [Fwd: Last Call: draft-dawkins-nomcom-openlist (Nominating Committee Process: Open Disclosure of Willing Nominees) to BCP]
On Jun 11, 2009, at 3:01 PM, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote: Actually, that raises a very good point. At present the list is neither secret, nor public. Any bad effect from the list being public will occur, any bad effect from it being secret can occur. I think that that is a "deep truth," since 1,$s/bad/good/ is also true. Regards Marshall On Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 2:45 PM, Bob Hinden wrote: Joe, 1) exposing the full list to the entire community invites lobbying the nomcom This probably already happens to some extent, but do we really want to encourage this? It's not clear this will lead to more lobbying than we have now. I think lobbying happens a lot now and is driven by the candidate him/ herself, or the many people who get the "secret" lists. I think it would be more balanced if everyone knew. I would add that the current system gives a greater ability to comment on candidates to the leadership (IAB/IESG/WG Chairs) because they get the many of the "secret" nomcom candidate lists. The nomcom might get broader feedback if the lists are open. Bob ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf -- -- New Website: http://hallambaker.com/ View Quantum of Stupid podcasts, Tuesday and Thursday each week, http://quantumofstupid.com/ ___ 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
Re: Publicizing IETF nominee lists [Fwd: Last Call: draft-dawkins-nomcom-openlist (Nominating Committee Process: Open Disclosure of Willing Nominees) to BCP]
Actually, that raises a very good point. At present the list is neither secret, nor public. Any bad effect from the list being public will occur, any bad effect from it being secret can occur. On Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 2:45 PM, Bob Hinden wrote: > Joe, > >> 1) exposing the full list to the entire community invites lobbying the >> nomcom >> >> This probably already happens to some extent, but do >> we really want to encourage this? > > It's not clear this will lead to more lobbying than we have now. I think > lobbying happens a lot now and is driven by the candidate him/herself, or > the many people who get the "secret" lists. I think it would be more > balanced if everyone knew. > > I would add that the current system gives a greater ability to comment on > candidates to the leadership (IAB/IESG/WG Chairs) because they get the many > of the "secret" nomcom candidate lists. The nomcom might get broader > feedback if the lists are open. > > Bob > > > ___ > Ietf mailing list > Ietf@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf > -- -- New Website: http://hallambaker.com/ View Quantum of Stupid podcasts, Tuesday and Thursday each week, http://quantumofstupid.com/ ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Publicizing IETF nominee lists [Fwd: Last Call: draft-dawkins-nomcom-openlist (Nominating Committee Process: Open Disclosure of Willing Nominees) to BCP]
The deliberative process of NOMCON means that it is more likely that consensus will be reached on the candidates that fewest people object to rather than those that have the strongest support. On Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 11:32 AM, Joe Touch wrote: > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA1 > > > > Melinda Shore wrote: >> SM wrote: >>> Hi Phillip, >>> At 08:32 10-06-2009, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote: A more useful change would be to abolish NOMCON and for those currently qualified to sit on NOMCON to elect the IAB and ADs directly. >>> The implications of the above is much more than publicizing the IETF >>> list of nominees. The discussion of that document highlighted how a >>> simple statement like "we want an open list" is not as simple as it >>> sounds. >> >> Indeed. Having elections means determining who's >> eligible to vote, and that has all kinds of cascading >> consequences. > > We already have that. The only difference is that: > > - - voters are selected randomly from among those not "running for office" > > - - voters are required to participate in interviews and meetings, which > may make them more informed > > In the end, though, all voting systems are popularity contests. > > Joe > -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- > Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32) > Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org > > iEYEARECAAYFAkoxI5wACgkQE5f5cImnZrtsvwCfduYzOIzSe5WBKPMW7Faiw48v > VMsAoKZlZRGzIsPhwj9NIJt2FfjjNM3O > =eV6t > -END PGP SIGNATURE- > -- -- New Website: http://hallambaker.com/ View Quantum of Stupid podcasts, Tuesday and Thursday each week, http://quantumofstupid.com/ ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Publicizing IETF nominee lists [Fwd: Last Call: draft-dawkins-nomcom-openlist (Nominating Committee Process: Open Disclosure of Willing Nominees) to BCP]
The idea that we would not want to return to the current system sounds like an argument against the status quo, rather than in favor of it. To answer Melinda, yes, the FSF would probably try to get a person onto the IAB. Let us imagine that they did so. Either the person is a raving lunatic, in which case all that happens is that the effective membership of the IAB drops by one, or they are sensible. If they are sensible they would almost certainly end up being co-opted and end up exporting our world view to the FSF. On Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 9:23 AM, Andrew Sullivan wrote: > On Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 06:32:56AM -0400, Melinda Shore wrote: > >> worth a shot. If MonsterCorp starts larding up the >> leadership with their own employees or it turns into >> a popularity contest it can be undone, > > I doubt that it can be undone once done. Any attempt to undo will be > decried as an attempt to hide something, move things into smoky back > rooms, &c. That will be especially true if it turns out that > companies who want to put resources into "getting people on the IESG" > (or whatever) are successful: they'll be able to use the same > resources to oppose changes that will undo that advantage. > > This isn't to say it's a bad idea (I haven't formed an opinion), but I > do think the move towards publicising these candidacies is a one-way > door. > > A > > -- > Andrew Sullivan > a...@shinkuro.com > Shinkuro, Inc. > ___ > Ietf mailing list > Ietf@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf > -- -- New Website: http://hallambaker.com/ View Quantum of Stupid podcasts, Tuesday and Thursday each week, http://quantumofstupid.com/ ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Publicizing IETF nominee lists [Fwd: Last Call: draft-dawkins-nomcom-openlist (Nominating Committee Process: Open Disclosure of Willing Nominees) to BCP]
And why did XMPP leave IETF process in the first place? On Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 7:27 AM, Dave Cridland wrote: > On Wed Jun 10 16:32:37 2009, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote: >> >> A more useful change would be to abolish NOMCON and for those >> currently qualified to sit on NOMCON to elect the IAB and ADs >> directly. > > A complete disaster for me, at least, since I - along with a substantial > number of reasonably active and involved IETF participants - am no qualified > to sit on NOMCOM. > > With the current state of affairs, I can still ensure my voice is heard by > NOMCOM, whereas with direct voting, I could not. Given the current climate, > and particularly how it affects corporate-sponsored travel, I strongly > suspect that there'll be many more in my boat - indeed, it's substantially > worse for those of us not in continental north america anyway. > > Of course, you could change the criteria, but the real critieria which - I > assume - the NOMCOM consider how much to weigh an opinion is presumably on > some ethereal "participation level", which is exceedingly difficult to > measure. > > FWIW, the XMPP Standards Foundation has an actual membership, who do actual > voting. I'm deeply unconvinced it provides the best solution there, and I've > been successfully voted in to the XMPP Council twice. (Which may, of course, > be evidence of it not working at all, to some). > > Dave. > -- > Dave Cridland - mailto:d...@cridland.net - xmpp:d...@dave.cridland.net > - acap://acap.dave.cridland.net/byowner/user/dwd/bookmarks/ > - http://dave.cridland.net/ > Infotrope Polymer - ACAP, IMAP, ESMTP, and Lemonade > -- -- New Website: http://hallambaker.com/ View Quantum of Stupid podcasts, Tuesday and Thursday each week, http://quantumofstupid.com/ ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Publicizing IETF nominee lists [Fwd: Last Call: draft-dawkins-nomcom-openlist (Nominating Committee Process: Open Disclosure of Willing Nominees) to BCP]
I was reading the Appeals court ruling in the VeriSign case last night and Michael Froomkin's paper on the anti-trust issues affecting ICANN. If you follow the logic of the Appeals court opinion it is highly unlikely that ICANN can remain a private organization. Since the administration already understands that ICANN is a liability, that only leaves the ITU. http://www.discourse.net/archives/2009/06/9th_cir_revives_com_antitrust_case.html One thing that struck me as a real risk is that similar concerns that may affect the IETF might have been ignored because of the people and the manner in which they were raised rather than on the merits. That does not make them any less of a liability. The current structures pretty much ensure that these issues only get raised by fringe elements. On Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 6:20 AM, SM wrote: > Hi Phillip, > At 08:32 10-06-2009, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote: >> >> A more useful change would be to abolish NOMCON and for those >> currently qualified to sit on NOMCON to elect the IAB and ADs >> directly. > > The implications of the above is much more than publicizing the IETF list of > nominees. The discussion of that document highlighted how a simple > statement like "we want an open list" is not as simple as it sounds. > >> Direct elections provide accountability and authority. Today we have > > Direct elections can also turn into a popularity contest. Instead of > democracy, we can end up with "mediacracy". > >> Instead of the outcome of proposals to change the standards process >> being 'the IESG didn't like them', we the broader membership[*] of the >> IETF can demand reasons and persons. And we can kick out the people >> who are being obstacles to change or proposing changes we disagree >> with. > > You can already ask for reasons. There's even a "face the participants" at > each IETF meeting where you can ask a question to the IAB, the IESG or a > particular member of the body. > > There will always be obstacles to change. There are advantages to having > these obstacles or else we end up with proposals that suit the whim of the > day. The is also room in the current process to kick out people. > >> Direct elections allow for contrarian views to enter into the >> discussions. The priority of successive NOMCONs has been to ensure > > Contrarian views can be labelled as the view of the fringe when they are > only shared by a small minority. And such views or the people holding then > will be cast away. > >> Yes, there is a risk of factions, but not a very large one. I am a >> member of the Oxford Union society and I know quite a bit about that >> type of politics. A Cisco or a Microsoft faction would be entirely >> counter-productive for the companies involved who come to the IETF to >> build industry support for adoption of their proposals and to be part >> of the consensus that emerges. The only type of faction that could be >> sustained long-term would be one committed to a particular technical >> principle such as preventing wiretap-friendly protocols or copyright >> enforcement schemes and only then if there was a sizable >> counter-faction or some group idiot enough to try to do that type of >> thing in IETF. > > Although a Cisco or Microsoft faction may be counter-productive, there will > be an incentive for factions to be formed as the proposed system provides an > environment conducive for that. In the new system, you'll also have to do > away with the notion of consensus. After all, that's not democratic. The > factions that will emerge in the long run are those that can use the system > to their advantage. When you have direct elections, you cannot aim for long > term goals as the people expect immediate results. Or else you won't stand > a chance when you put your name up for reelection. > >> We should try democracy. It is an old idea, seems to work. > > For some, yes. As someone on this mailing list put it, we are guided by our > interests. The new system will only amplify that. The rule of the majority > is only effective if there is participation. We only have to look at the > amount of participation in here to see that there will always be a silent > majority which only springs to life when a narrowly focused issue captures > their attention. > >> [*] Yes, we should demand consideration as citizens, not serfs. The >> pretense that the IETF has no members is very convenient for those >> appointed, not so great for the rest of us. > > You get the amount of consideration you deserve. If you behave like a serf, > you will be considered as one. :-) For the IETF to have members, it needs > to define a criteria for membership. This opens a debate about "currently > qualified to sit on NomCom". Most organizations that have adopted the > NomCom model have found it difficult to define a formal constituency and > devise an appropriate structure for it. You'll have to build in the check > and balances to keep the authority in check. > > Readers ar
Re: Publicizing IETF nominee lists [Fwd: Last Call: draft-dawkins-nomcom-openlist (Nominating Committee Process: Open Disclosure of Willing Nominees) to BCP]
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Bob Hinden wrote: > Joe, > >> 1) exposing the full list to the entire community invites lobbying the >> nomcom >> >> This probably already happens to some extent, but do >> we really want to encourage this? > > It's not clear this will lead to more lobbying than we have now. I > think lobbying happens a lot now and is driven by the candidate > him/herself, or the many people who get the "secret" lists. I think it > would be more balanced if everyone knew. If everyone knew, there would be more lobbying since there would be more people participating. I doubt the direct or secret-list lobbying would wane much as a result. > > I would add that the current system gives a greater ability to comment > on candidates to the leadership (IAB/IESG/WG Chairs) because they get > the many of the "secret" nomcom candidate lists. The nomcom might get > broader feedback if the lists are open. Yes, they might, but as I pointed out that's not the only effect. Joe -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.3 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFKMWUfE5f5cImnZrsRAopTAJ9LzCputw2o+RomPkDcPMpyDfAJtwCfVITj +w7oZ/qhGo3xxQ7gs0YmOFw= =7Tg8 -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Publicizing IETF nominee lists [Fwd: Last Call: draft-dawkins-nomcom-openlist (Nominating Committee Process: Open Disclosure of Willing Nominees) to BCP]
Actually, that raises a very good point. At present the list is neither secret, nor public. Any bad effect from the list being public will occur, any bad effect from it being secret can occur. Right, it's a "secret" that many people know. Better to have it be public. Bob ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Publicizing IETF nominee lists [Fwd: Last Call: draft-dawkins-nomcom-openlist (Nominating Committee Process: Open Disclosure of Willing Nominees) to BCP]
Joe, 1) exposing the full list to the entire community invites lobbying the nomcom This probably already happens to some extent, but do we really want to encourage this? It's not clear this will lead to more lobbying than we have now. I think lobbying happens a lot now and is driven by the candidate him/ herself, or the many people who get the "secret" lists. I think it would be more balanced if everyone knew. I would add that the current system gives a greater ability to comment on candidates to the leadership (IAB/IESG/WG Chairs) because they get the many of the "secret" nomcom candidate lists. The nomcom might get broader feedback if the lists are open. Bob ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Publicizing IETF nominee lists [Fwd: Last Call: draft-dawkins-nomcom-openlist (Nominating Committee Process: Open Disclosure of Willing Nominees) to BCP]
At 10:51 AM +0200 6/11/09, Lars Eggert wrote: Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary=Apple-Mail-5-115115602; micalg=sha1; protocol="application/pkcs7-signature" I agree with Sam and Jari. This is a good and overdue change. Lars I also agree with this proposal, based on several experiences serving on NOMCOM. Steve ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Publicizing IETF nominee lists [Fwd: Last Call: draft-dawkins-nomcom-openlist (Nominating Committee Process: Open Disclosure of Willing Nominees) to BCP]
At 03:32 11-06-2009, Melinda Shore wrote: worth a shot. Enough people feel the current process isn't working to suggest that the current process really isn't working. It suggests that there is a perception that the current process isn't working. At 04:51 11-06-2009, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote: One thing that struck me as a real risk is that similar concerns that may affect the IETF might have been ignored because of the people and the manner in which they were raised rather than on the merits. That does not make them any less of a liability. I don't know whether there is risk or not. It's not the manner or the people that raised the concerns that matters (to me). The current structures pretty much ensure that these issues only get raised by fringe elements. I won't qualify people who raise such issues as fringe elements. I believe that they are an important, and somewhat overlooked, part of the process. Regards, -sm ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Publicizing IETF nominee lists [Fwd: Last Call: draft-dawkins-nomcom-openlist (Nominating Committee Process: Open Disclosure of Willing Nominees) to BCP]
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote: > The deliberative process of NOMCON means that it is more likely that > consensus will be reached on the candidates that fewest people object > to rather than those that have the strongest support. Deliberation means that weak objections are as likely to be influenced by discussions by strong supporters. I.e., deliberation can just as easily contributes to amplification of strong support, rather than suppression of it. Tuning the process is fine, but let's not be deluded into thinking it will be any better than "flawed, but sufficient". Selectees don't need to be (further) encouraged they've been anointed by some perfect process. We should be considering Nomcom's primary role in making the shortlist, i.e., in making a threshold. Frankly, the community would be better served IMO by selecting from among the shortlist using the same (random) process used in selecting the Nomcom. Joe > On Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 11:32 AM, Joe Touch wrote: > > > Melinda Shore wrote: SM wrote: > Hi Phillip, > At 08:32 10-06-2009, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote: >> A more useful change would be to abolish NOMCON and for those >> currently qualified to sit on NOMCON to elect the IAB and ADs >> directly. > The implications of the above is much more than publicizing the IETF > list of nominees. The discussion of that document highlighted how a > simple statement like "we want an open list" is not as simple as it > sounds. Indeed. Having elections means determining who's eligible to vote, and that has all kinds of cascading consequences. > We already have that. The only difference is that: > > - voters are selected randomly from among those not "running for office" > > - voters are required to participate in interviews and meetings, which > may make them more informed > > In the end, though, all voting systems are popularity contests. > > Joe >> -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iEYEARECAAYFAkoxKdgACgkQE5f5cImnZrvNiACgqYFrs7rSkSFg7DdAHZ7SY0Rq gNgAoOWKOmxP1fgE0hD8ob2PGc+0h/OY =ZJ9H -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Publicizing IETF nominee lists [Fwd: Last Call: draft-dawkins-nomcom-openlist (Nominating Committee Process: Open Disclosure of Willing Nominees) to BCP]
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 I am concerned about this development for several reasons: 1) exposing the full list to the entire community invites lobbying the nomcom This probably already happens to some extent, but do we really want to encourage this? 2) exposing the willing participation of individuals for certain position could be a disincentive E.g., consider someone whose current employer won't/can't support the level of commitment required for a position, and that a new employer has agreed to hire them - either contingent on the position or just at some point in the future so that they can accept the position if appointed. Exposing this list could expose intentions to shift employers, which would be a disincentive to some. If the Nomcom cannot make this decision without wide community input (which I tend to agree with), then we either need open lists with open elections or we need closed lists with closed elections. I do not see utility in mixing the two. Joe Leslie Daigle wrote: > > I know Spencer has brought one item of discussion from this last call to > the general IETF mailing list, but I'd like to draw attention to the > whole document, which, if passed, will make a significant change in IETF > practice: the lists of willing nominees for IETF positions will be > published publicly. > > This has been discussed on the ietf-nomcom list: > >> ___ >> ietf-nomcom mailing list >> ietf-nom...@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-nomcom > > > So, if you're interested, check out the mailing list archives to see how > potential issues were discussed. > > Leslie. > > Original Message > Subject: Last Call: draft-dawkins-nomcom-openlist (Nominating > Committee Process: Open Disclosure of Willing Nominees) to BCP > Date: Fri, 5 Jun 2009 16:45:11 -0700 (PDT) > From: The IESG > Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org > To: IETF-Announce > > The IESG has received a request from an individual submitter to consider > the following document: > > - 'Nominating Committee Process: Open Disclosure of Willing Nominees ' > as a BCP > > The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits > final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the > ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2009-07-03. Exceptionally, > comments may be sent to i...@ietf.org instead. In either case, please > retain the beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting. > > The file can be obtained via > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-dawkins-nomcom-openlist-04.txt > > > IESG discussion can be tracked via > https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/pidtracker.cgi?command=view_id&dTag=18213&rfc_flag=0 > > > ___ > IETF-Announce mailing list > ietf-annou...@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-announce > -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iEYEARECAAYFAkoxJSUACgkQE5f5cImnZruvlQCeM371Wb3S4csZaht0aWMVVEHh VrgAn0itTIPxA7wqEHHl81zmCq0307ql =cLQ8 -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Publicizing IETF nominee lists [Fwd: Last Call: draft-dawkins-nomcom-openlist (Nominating Committee Process: Open Disclosure of Willing Nominees) to BCP]
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Melinda Shore wrote: > SM wrote: >> Hi Phillip, >> At 08:32 10-06-2009, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote: >>> A more useful change would be to abolish NOMCON and for those >>> currently qualified to sit on NOMCON to elect the IAB and ADs >>> directly. >> The implications of the above is much more than publicizing the IETF >> list of nominees. The discussion of that document highlighted how a >> simple statement like "we want an open list" is not as simple as it >> sounds. > > Indeed. Having elections means determining who's > eligible to vote, and that has all kinds of cascading > consequences. We already have that. The only difference is that: - - voters are selected randomly from among those not "running for office" - - voters are required to participate in interviews and meetings, which may make them more informed In the end, though, all voting systems are popularity contests. Joe -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iEYEARECAAYFAkoxI5wACgkQE5f5cImnZrtsvwCfduYzOIzSe5WBKPMW7Faiw48v VMsAoKZlZRGzIsPhwj9NIJt2FfjjNM3O =eV6t -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Publicizing IETF nominee lists [Fwd: Last Call: draft-dawkins-nomcom-openlist (Nominating Committee Process: Open Disclosure of Willing Nominees) to BCP]
On Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 10:34:08AM -0400, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote: > The idea that we would not want to return to the current system sounds > like an argument against the status quo, rather than in favor of it. Again, I don't have an opinion on the draft one way or the other, but the above strikes me as relying on an equivocation. That "we" does not obviously pick out the same group across the time we're talking about. If some people who would otherwise be engaged stop participating because of discomfort with a more political campaign-style leadership process, then the people who will make the rules in the later stage are not the same ones as those who will be adopting this change. Moreover, those who dislike those political campaign-style processes are unlikely to participate in one when it is required in order to change the rules, so even if they stick around they're unlikely to have much influence in an effort to undo the change we're contemplating. A -- Andrew Sullivan a...@shinkuro.com Shinkuro, Inc. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Publicizing IETF nominee lists [Fwd: Last Call: draft-dawkins-nomcom-openlist (Nominating Committee Process: Open Disclosure of Willing Nominees) to BCP]
On Thu Jun 11 13:21:22 2009, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote: And why did XMPP leave IETF process in the first place? And have you stopped beating your wife yet? The XSF never followed the IETF process in the first place, and therefore could not leave it - I doubt many of the formers were aware of the Nomcom process when the Jabber Software Foundation, as it was then, was formed. After all, it was formed in August 2001, and the Jabber BOF wasn't until about a year later. Dave. -- Dave Cridland - mailto:d...@cridland.net - xmpp:d...@dave.cridland.net - acap://acap.dave.cridland.net/byowner/user/dwd/bookmarks/ - http://dave.cridland.net/ Infotrope Polymer - ACAP, IMAP, ESMTP, and Lemonade ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Publicizing IETF nominee lists [Fwd: Last Call: draft-dawkins-nomcom-openlist (Nominating Committee Process: Open Disclosure of Willing Nominees) to BCP]
On Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 06:32:56AM -0400, Melinda Shore wrote: > worth a shot. If MonsterCorp starts larding up the > leadership with their own employees or it turns into > a popularity contest it can be undone, I doubt that it can be undone once done. Any attempt to undo will be decried as an attempt to hide something, move things into smoky back rooms, &c. That will be especially true if it turns out that companies who want to put resources into "getting people on the IESG" (or whatever) are successful: they'll be able to use the same resources to oppose changes that will undo that advantage. This isn't to say it's a bad idea (I haven't formed an opinion), but I do think the move towards publicising these candidacies is a one-way door. A -- Andrew Sullivan a...@shinkuro.com Shinkuro, Inc. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Publicizing IETF nominee lists [Fwd: Last Call: draft-dawkins-nomcom-openlist (Nominating Committee Process: Open Disclosure of Willing Nominees) to BCP]
On Wed Jun 10 16:32:37 2009, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote: A more useful change would be to abolish NOMCON and for those currently qualified to sit on NOMCON to elect the IAB and ADs directly. A complete disaster for me, at least, since I - along with a substantial number of reasonably active and involved IETF participants - am no qualified to sit on NOMCOM. With the current state of affairs, I can still ensure my voice is heard by NOMCOM, whereas with direct voting, I could not. Given the current climate, and particularly how it affects corporate-sponsored travel, I strongly suspect that there'll be many more in my boat - indeed, it's substantially worse for those of us not in continental north america anyway. Of course, you could change the criteria, but the real critieria which - I assume - the NOMCOM consider how much to weigh an opinion is presumably on some ethereal "participation level", which is exceedingly difficult to measure. FWIW, the XMPP Standards Foundation has an actual membership, who do actual voting. I'm deeply unconvinced it provides the best solution there, and I've been successfully voted in to the XMPP Council twice. (Which may, of course, be evidence of it not working at all, to some). Dave. -- Dave Cridland - mailto:d...@cridland.net - xmpp:d...@dave.cridland.net - acap://acap.dave.cridland.net/byowner/user/dwd/bookmarks/ - http://dave.cridland.net/ Infotrope Polymer - ACAP, IMAP, ESMTP, and Lemonade ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Publicizing IETF nominee lists [Fwd: Last Call: draft-dawkins-nomcom-openlist (Nominating Committee Process: Open Disclosure of Willing Nominees) to BCP]
SM wrote: Hi Phillip, At 08:32 10-06-2009, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote: A more useful change would be to abolish NOMCON and for those currently qualified to sit on NOMCON to elect the IAB and ADs directly. The implications of the above is much more than publicizing the IETF list of nominees. The discussion of that document highlighted how a simple statement like "we want an open list" is not as simple as it sounds. Indeed. Having elections means determining who's eligible to vote, and that has all kinds of cascading consequences. A kind of funny one is that it could provide incentives to attend meetings, which isn't necessarily good (in the past there have been instances of companies wanting very much to get one of their employees on the IESG or IAB). I'm not that crazy about publicizing nominations, for the reasons you mention, but the pressure's been on for a number of years to do it and it may be worth a shot. If MonsterCorp starts larding up the leadership with their own employees or it turns into a popularity contest it can be undone, but it may be worth a shot. Enough people feel the current process isn't working to suggest that the current process really isn't working. Melinda ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Publicizing IETF nominee lists [Fwd: Last Call: draft-dawkins-nomcom-openlist (Nominating Committee Process: Open Disclosure of Willing Nominees) to BCP]
Hi Phillip, At 08:32 10-06-2009, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote: A more useful change would be to abolish NOMCON and for those currently qualified to sit on NOMCON to elect the IAB and ADs directly. The implications of the above is much more than publicizing the IETF list of nominees. The discussion of that document highlighted how a simple statement like "we want an open list" is not as simple as it sounds. Direct elections provide accountability and authority. Today we have Direct elections can also turn into a popularity contest. Instead of democracy, we can end up with "mediacracy". Instead of the outcome of proposals to change the standards process being 'the IESG didn't like them', we the broader membership[*] of the IETF can demand reasons and persons. And we can kick out the people who are being obstacles to change or proposing changes we disagree with. You can already ask for reasons. There's even a "face the participants" at each IETF meeting where you can ask a question to the IAB, the IESG or a particular member of the body. There will always be obstacles to change. There are advantages to having these obstacles or else we end up with proposals that suit the whim of the day. The is also room in the current process to kick out people. Direct elections allow for contrarian views to enter into the discussions. The priority of successive NOMCONs has been to ensure Contrarian views can be labelled as the view of the fringe when they are only shared by a small minority. And such views or the people holding then will be cast away. Yes, there is a risk of factions, but not a very large one. I am a member of the Oxford Union society and I know quite a bit about that type of politics. A Cisco or a Microsoft faction would be entirely counter-productive for the companies involved who come to the IETF to build industry support for adoption of their proposals and to be part of the consensus that emerges. The only type of faction that could be sustained long-term would be one committed to a particular technical principle such as preventing wiretap-friendly protocols or copyright enforcement schemes and only then if there was a sizable counter-faction or some group idiot enough to try to do that type of thing in IETF. Although a Cisco or Microsoft faction may be counter-productive, there will be an incentive for factions to be formed as the proposed system provides an environment conducive for that. In the new system, you'll also have to do away with the notion of consensus. After all, that's not democratic. The factions that will emerge in the long run are those that can use the system to their advantage. When you have direct elections, you cannot aim for long term goals as the people expect immediate results. Or else you won't stand a chance when you put your name up for reelection. We should try democracy. It is an old idea, seems to work. For some, yes. As someone on this mailing list put it, we are guided by our interests. The new system will only amplify that. The rule of the majority is only effective if there is participation. We only have to look at the amount of participation in here to see that there will always be a silent majority which only springs to life when a narrowly focused issue captures their attention. [*] Yes, we should demand consideration as citizens, not serfs. The pretense that the IETF has no members is very convenient for those appointed, not so great for the rest of us. You get the amount of consideration you deserve. If you behave like a serf, you will be considered as one. :-) For the IETF to have members, it needs to define a criteria for membership. This opens a debate about "currently qualified to sit on NomCom". Most organizations that have adopted the NomCom model have found it difficult to define a formal constituency and devise an appropriate structure for it. You'll have to build in the check and balances to keep the authority in check. Readers are cautioned not to draw any conclusions from the information below without a thorough analysis. The following is a distribution by company: RFC authors Attendance Cisco 12%6% Ericsson 3%3% Microsoft 2%2% Nokia 2%2% Juniper2%3% Nortel 2%1% IBM2%0% NTT2%2% One or more companies might have a significant advantage in a membership-based organization. There may even be an increase in membership as the economic factors favor some companies. There would be pressure to change the model from individuals to corporate. I don't think that the current model is perfect. If you want to rock the boat, I'm all for it. But before you do that, I'd like to have some assurance that the boat won't sink. :-) Regards, -sm ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listi
Re: Publicizing IETF nominee lists [Fwd: Last Call: draft-dawkins-nomcom-openlist (Nominating Committee Process: Open Disclosure of Willing Nominees) to BCP]
I agree with Sam and Jari. This is a good and overdue change. Lars On 2009-6-10, at 17:21, Jari Arkko wrote: I also support the publication of this document (modulo some nits that were discussed earlier). Yes, there are trade-offs. But having observed the process from various sides over the years, I do I believe adopting the more open model is the right thing to do. Jari ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf smime.p7s Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Publicizing IETF nominee lists [Fwd: Last Call: draft-dawkins-nomcom-openlist (Nominating Committee Process: Open Disclosure of Willing Nominees) to BCP]
This is a useful and necessary change. A more useful change would be to abolish NOMCON and for those currently qualified to sit on NOMCON to elect the IAB and ADs directly. Direct elections provide accountability and authority. Today we have an Internet Architecture Board that stopped trying to do architecture after the Kobe revolt. That is a problem because the architecture is not a static property, without direction it degrades over time. Instead of the outcome of proposals to change the standards process being 'the IESG didn't like them', we the broader membership[*] of the IETF can demand reasons and persons. And we can kick out the people who are being obstacles to change or proposing changes we disagree with. Direct elections allow for contrarian views to enter into the discussions. The priority of successive NOMCONs has been to ensure that the members of the IAB get along and to keep out anyone who might rock the boat. As a result the only members of the awkward squad who get appointed are the ones who are committed to defending the status quo at all costs, not the people who point out what is not working. Yes, there is a risk of factions, but not a very large one. I am a member of the Oxford Union society and I know quite a bit about that type of politics. A Cisco or a Microsoft faction would be entirely counter-productive for the companies involved who come to the IETF to build industry support for adoption of their proposals and to be part of the consensus that emerges. The only type of faction that could be sustained long-term would be one committed to a particular technical principle such as preventing wiretap-friendly protocols or copyright enforcement schemes and only then if there was a sizable counter-faction or some group idiot enough to try to do that type of thing in IETF. We should try democracy. It is an old idea, seems to work. [*] Yes, we should demand consideration as citizens, not serfs. The pretense that the IETF has no members is very convenient for those appointed, not so great for the rest of us. On Wed, Jun 10, 2009 at 10:11 AM, Sam Hartman wrote: > Thanks for bringing this to our attention. > > Having reviewed the draft, I support publication of this document as a > BCP. I think it is a long-needed change. I understand that there are > important tradeoffs involved, and while I acknowledge that there are > disadvantages to this change, I think that it is a significant net > good. > ___ > Ietf mailing list > Ietf@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf > -- -- New Website: http://hallambaker.com/ View Quantum of Stupid podcasts, Tuesday and Thursday each week, http://quantumofstupid.com/ ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Publicizing IETF nominee lists [Fwd: Last Call: draft-dawkins-nomcom-openlist (Nominating Committee Process: Open Disclosure of Willing Nominees) to BCP]
I also support the publication of this document (modulo some nits that were discussed earlier). Yes, there are trade-offs. But having observed the process from various sides over the years, I do I believe adopting the more open model is the right thing to do. Jari ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Publicizing IETF nominee lists [Fwd: Last Call: draft-dawkins-nomcom-openlist (Nominating Committee Process: Open Disclosure of Willing Nominees) to BCP]
Thanks for bringing this to our attention. Having reviewed the draft, I support publication of this document as a BCP. I think it is a long-needed change. I understand that there are important tradeoffs involved, and while I acknowledge that there are disadvantages to this change, I think that it is a significant net good. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Publicizing IETF nominee lists [Fwd: Last Call: draft-dawkins-nomcom-openlist (Nominating Committee Process: Open Disclosure of Willing Nominees) to BCP]
I know Spencer has brought one item of discussion from this last call to the general IETF mailing list, but I'd like to draw attention to the whole document, which, if passed, will make a significant change in IETF practice: the lists of willing nominees for IETF positions will be published publicly. This has been discussed on the ietf-nomcom list: ___ ietf-nomcom mailing list ietf-nom...@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-nomcom So, if you're interested, check out the mailing list archives to see how potential issues were discussed. Leslie. Original Message Subject: Last Call: draft-dawkins-nomcom-openlist (Nominating Committee Process: Open Disclosure of Willing Nominees) to BCP Date: Fri, 5 Jun 2009 16:45:11 -0700 (PDT) From: The IESG Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org To: IETF-Announce The IESG has received a request from an individual submitter to consider the following document: - 'Nominating Committee Process: Open Disclosure of Willing Nominees ' as a BCP The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2009-07-03. Exceptionally, comments may be sent to i...@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting. The file can be obtained via http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-dawkins-nomcom-openlist-04.txt IESG discussion can be tracked via https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/pidtracker.cgi?command=view_id&dTag=18213&rfc_flag=0 ___ IETF-Announce mailing list ietf-annou...@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-announce -- --- "Reality: Yours to discover." -- ThinkingCat Leslie Daigle les...@thinkingcat.com --- ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
