Hi,
Some comments on the Nomcom related topics:
"Inexperienced people on Nomcom"
My experience was that most, if not all, of the people in this year's
Nomcom are quite experienced in the IETF processes and care about the
IETF. We have, I think, at least 4 WG chairs, and most if not all
members
I'll chime in on this, having been a NomCom'er at one time.
"Inexperienced people on Nomcom"
In my year, there were quite a few who would fit this category. I
found these folks to be quite objective and a refreshing source of
questions.
The one hindering factor was that they, because of not hav
Hi Lakshminath,
As the title indicates, it is not sufficient to just complain about an
AD (I guess it might be sufficient in the "Recall" process), it is
also necessary to provide a pool of, or just one for that matter,
candidates who are interested and qualified. Yes, I have real
examples. (
...
I would suggest that (agreeing) candidate lists be made public
early in the process, in order to make it easier for the IETFers to
provide you feedback. This would also increase the transparency
of the process. And yes, I am aware of the argument that some
candidates might be shy to reveal that
gt;
Cc: ; "Dave Crocker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, April 27, 2005 7:26 AM
Subject: Re: Complaining about ADs to Nomcom (Re: Voting (again))
...
I would suggest that (agreeing) candidate lists be made public
early in the process, in order to make it easier for the IETFers to
pr
At 13:59 +0300 4/27/05, Jari Arkko wrote:
I like this suggestion. But first: I'd rather call this thread "feedback"
than "complaining", because I hope the nomcom gets a lot of input
and not just when someone is doing badly.
From my experience - I'd call it complaining. ;)
Rarely are compliments off
At 7:43 -0500 4/27/05, Spencer Dawkins wrote:
FWIW, there was the separate suggestion that NOMCOM publish the NUMBER of
candidates who agreed to be considered, and this seems helpful without setting
off the usual alarms...
When I sat on the nomcom, we tried to get more information about
willing ca
John, Spencer,
The issue you raise about different people having different
amount of information is a valid one. I originally thought
of this problem mainly from the point of view of an individual
being able to provide good input, but it would indeed be fair
that all IETFers have the same ability t
Spencer,
You hit an important issue. Having a small group of people
choose who they want feedback from (granted everyone else is welcome
to send feedback without knowing the options for ADs) is not
a recipe for a successful process. I haven't yet seen a good reason
for not publicising the names
Please understand the argument that was made strongly while
RFC 3777 was in WG discussion: there is reason to believe that
a substantial fraction of the potential candidates would *not*
volunteer if they were entering a public race. It's hard to
judge the validity of that argument, but it's certain
> Please understand the argument that was made strongly while
> RFC 3777 was in WG discussion: there is reason to believe that
> a substantial fraction of the potential candidates would *not*
> volunteer if they were entering a public race. It's hard to
> judge the validity of that argument,
At 01:10 PM 5/4/2005, Soliman, Hesham wrote:
> One way to open up the process would be to allow any participant
> to personally request a list of candidates from Nomcom, against
> a personal non-disclosure promise. (Not my idea; this was suggested
> during last week's IESG retreat.)
=> If we do
> At 01:10 PM 5/4/2005, Soliman, Hesham wrote:
> > > One way to open up the process would be to allow any participant
> > > to personally request a list of candidates from Nomcom, against
> > > a personal non-disclosure promise. (Not my idea; this
> was suggested
> > > during last week
Hi Brian,
Please understand the argument that was made strongly while
RFC 3777 was in WG discussion: there is reason to believe that
a substantial fraction of the potential candidates would *not*
volunteer if they were entering a public race. It's hard to
judge the validity of that argument, but it
Brian & Jari,
> > Please understand the argument that was made strongly while
> > RFC 3777 was in WG discussion: there is reason to believe that
> > a substantial fraction of the potential candidates would *not*
> > volunteer if they were entering a public race. It's hard to
> > judge the validity
--On Wednesday, 04 May, 2005 17:04 +0200 Brian E Carpenter
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Please understand the argument that was made strongly while
> RFC 3777 was in WG discussion: there is reason to believe that
> a substantial fraction of the potential candidates would *not*
> volunteer if the
You raise two questions about making the candidate list public.
You raise the question of whether we can afford the loss of candidates from
those people not willing to be seen as losing. I will admit to not being
sure I understand the driver for people who both have that concern and
could do th
Hi John,
At 9:18 AM -0400 5/7/05, John C Klensin wrote:
Whatever the reasons, we don't seem to have enough plausible
candidates to provide reasonable turnover on the IESG (which,
personally, I think would be healthy).
What is "reasonable turnover" for the IESG?
I haven't been on a nomcom, but (from
Margaret Wasserman wrote:
> What is "reasonable turnover" for the IESG?
>
> ... successful ADs who are willing to
> continue serving will probably be in-office for an average of 8-10
> years (4-5 terms). This seems to match existing practice.
I personally find that this is too long.
> What lev
At 10:52 AM -0700 5/7/05, Christian Huitema wrote:
What level of turnover do you think would be healthy? And what would
be the impacts of having more new ADs each year?
My personal preference would be an average of 4 to 6 years. You have to
ensure turnover for multiple reasons: even if you have
> Do you actually think that we need an even higher turnover? Or are
> you pointing out an historical problem which may have been corrected
> over the past two years?
I was merely reacting to your assessment that renewal rate by the nom
com of less than 25% leads to average terms of 8-10 years, w
And there is some risk (small, I think) of people pushing others to
endorse them. This would seem easier with a public list, because the
nomcom is not left wondering why they got the supportive email.
A risk not without quite extensive precedent over the years, and the
concept of overt electio
I agree that electioneering is extremely undesirable.
And it does currently agree to some degree.
The question is whether publishing the list would actually cause a
significant increase in that behavior. If we conclude that publishing
would indeed result in such an increase, then that is a good
Soliman, Hesham wrote:
> At 01:10 PM 5/4/2005, Soliman, Hesham wrote:
> > > One way to open up the process would be to allow any participant
> > > to personally request a list of candidates from Nomcom, against
> > > a personal non-disclosure promise. (Not my idea; this
> was suggested
>
Actually, I'm not sure I agree (that it's a good plan, or better
to do it this way than update the BCP).
When the NomCom WG was discussing this as part of creating RFC3777,
I was initially a proponent of the "publish the candidate list!"
perspective. I will admit to having been swayed by the argume
Brian,
> > > Currently, to obtain
> > > input from a more diverse set of people, Nomcomm has to guess who is
> > > appropriate to ask & hope that a reasonable sampling of them will be
> > > willing/interested in responding.
> > >
> > => Ok, since I think it will lead to the same effect (wi
I'm actually not particularly convinced that publicizing the list
of names would narrow the candidate pool particularly, but it does
seem to me that by making electioneering a more pressing piece of
the process (there's electioneering now, but it's not significant)
and moving the process closer to
I don't understand why making names public would increase
electioneering over what we already have.
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
On May 9, 2005, at 1:42 PM, Scott W Brim wrote:
I don't understand why making names public would increase
electioneering over what we already have.
"Electioneering" is perhaps the wrong word, since it implies
behavior on the part of the candidates. What I'm thinking about
is pressure from interest
Ah, but the candidates know who they are, and can arrange their own
positive input.
If the list were open, might the nomcom receive more and better balanced
input?
- Ralph
On Mon, 2005-05-09 at 13:49 -0400, Melinda Shore wrote:
> On May 9, 2005, at 1:42 PM, Scott W Brim wrote:
> > I don't unders
==
The good thing about mobile email is that t9 forces you to be brief.
--- original message ---
Subject:Re: Complaining about ADs to Nomcom (Re: Voting (again))
Sender: Margaret Wasserman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 05/07/2005 5:43 pm
Hi John,
At 9:18 AM -0400 5/
s on & candidates can remain
anonymous.
John
The good thing about mobile email is that t9 forces you to be brief.
--- original message ---
Subject:Re: Complaining about ADs to Nomcom (Re: Voting (again))
Sender: Brian E Carpenter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 0
I tend to agree with Leslie that it would be better to update
the BCP. (I can volunteer to edit an update, if there are
no other takers.)
But I believe the update should simply allow the nomcom
to publish this information. As has been stated before,
a lot of this information is already around us, s
Hi John,
So, those of you who strongly advocate a public list... What
percentage of the already-too-small potential candidate pool are
you willing to lose? Are you convinced that anyone with
sensitivities or conditions similar to those outlined above
would make a bad AD if selected? Do you thi
This is a good suggestion in the sense that as far as I can see, it
would fall within the current BCP rules, and could be implemented
easily soon. Then we could take a bit more time to update the BCP
in parallel, while perhaps also getting some early experiences
on how well the new model works.
--J
Jari,
Jari Arkko wrote:
I tend to agree with Leslie that it would be better to update
the BCP. (I can volunteer to edit an update, if there are
no other takers.)
You may live to regret that statement :-)
But I believe the update should simply allow the nomcom
to publish this information. As has bee
Brian E Carpenter wrote:
As Leslie noted (...) another tricky point is exactly when
the list is published and how nominations after that date
are handled.
Agreed. If you make the publication at the end of the
nominations period then its not useful as a tool for
other potential candidates to decide
Jari Arkko wrote:
Brian E Carpenter wrote:
As Leslie noted (...) another tricky point is exactly when
the list is published and how nominations after that date
are handled.
Agreed. If you make the publication at the end of the
nominations period then its not useful as a tool for
other potential ca
> On day N, publish the list of willing nominees so far and invite further
>
> nominations before day N+14.
>
> On day N+28, publish the final list of willing nominees and invite
> feedback.
>
> This would, if we wanted to publish the names, give 2 weeks for extra
> nominations and another 2
Seems resonable to of as well.
The good thing about mobile email is that t9 forces you to be brief.
--- original message ---
Subject:Re: Complaining about ADs to Nomcom (Re: Voting (again))
Sender: Dave Crocker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 05/10/2005 5
Brian E Carpenter wrote:
Actually, I think there is a slightly better way, somehow analagous
to the 'petition period' used by the ISOC NomCom process.
On day N, publish the list of willing nominees so far and invite further
nominations before day N+14.
On day N+28, publish the final list of willing
Brian,
This works for me, too. FWIW.
Actually, I think there is a slightly better way, somehow analagous
to the 'petition period' used by the ISOC NomCom process.
On day N, publish the list of willing nominees so far and invite
further
nominations before day N+14.
On day N+28, publish the final l
Sorry for late response.
> Let me follow this up a bit.
>
> I've been encouraging people to try to sort through reasons and
> things that would make it different on another thread, but I
> think we have a "choice of potential candidates" problem today.
> The IESG and IAB received "very few
Hesham,
Soliman, Hesham wrote:
...
> Even assuming that publishing candidate lists would result in
> better-quality feedback and permit the Nomcom to make better
> choices among plausibly-appropriate candidates, please look at
> the other side. There are people in the community who, for
> wh
> => I would challenge this assumption. From what I've seen (I saw
> the list of some of the nominees lately) I don't think we have
it is not an "assumption". it is an explanation that the nomcom gives, with
some regularity.
d/
---
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
+1.408.24
> > => With all due respect to those people, I think it's a shame
> > they feel like that. It seems like the selection decision
> is perceived
> > as a personal judgement by those people. Good people may not
> > get selected for a million reasons. I hate making blanket
> judgements
> > b
> But there is another issue. When someone asks their employer for
> agreement to be a candidate, the employer may worry about the PR
> impact. Imagine:
Well, that is certainly a serious problem for all of the other professional
organizations that have public nominees lists, isn't it?
d/
On May 9, 2005, at 8:09 AM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
I'm going to ask this year's Nomcom chair to see if this year's
candidates can answer the question "would you have run if your name
had been made public?"
Brian
Brian et al.,
Here are some data points for folks to consider. Thanks to all
thos
gt; From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
> Behalf Of Danny McPherson
> Sent: Wednesday, May 11, 2005 3:31 PM
> To: ietf@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: Complaining about ADs to Nomcom (Re: Voting (again))
>
>
>
> On May 9, 2005, at 8:09 AM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>
> "Spencer" == Spencer Dawkins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Spencer> My point is that I *have* seen a complete list of
Spencer> nominations, including a couple of ringers, for specific
Spencer> AD positions, and I *have* seen a complete list of
Spencer> nominations for IAB posi
> "Brian" == Brian E Carpenter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Brian> Please understand the argument that was made strongly while
Brian> RFC 3777 was in WG discussion: there is reason to believe
Brian> that a substantial fraction of the potential candidates
Brian> would *not* volun
> Seems fairly easy to judge the validity of that argument to me. ASk
> the nomcom to ask volunteers whether they would have volunteered if
> their name was gonig to be made public. Collect statistics.
Sam,
Sorry, no.
As I posted earlier, that sort of methodology relies on what survey
rese
Hi, Sam,
"Spencer" == Spencer Dawkins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Spencer> My point is that I *have* seen a complete list of
Spencer> nominations, including a couple of ringers, for specific
Spencer> AD positions, and I *have* seen a complete list of
Spencer> nominations for IAB posit
You've seen Danny's message with the results of asking the
question in a straightforward way - 20% of IESG nominees
say they would not have volunteered. Unlike Dave, I am
willing to believe them.
fwiw I responded "Yes" to Danny's question, but not
without careful thought and some hesitation.
Bri
> You've seen Danny's message with the results of asking the
> question in a straightforward way - 20% of IESG nominees
> say they would not have volunteered. Unlike Dave, I am
> willing to believe them.
Unfortunately Brian, this has nothing to do with my personal "beliefs".
It has to do wit
Playing a bit of catch-up on this thread...
Alia Atlas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> There is a difference between having participants who are interested in
> providing feedback ask for a copy of the list, with a promise of
> confidentiality, and give feedback - versus having that information
In the light of this and Dave's comments, and since I used to
teach people how to design survey questions so that the
questions were as non-reactive as possible and the answers could
be interpreted. There is nothing inherently wrong with a
self-report question. We ask them all the time and no
You've seen Danny's message with the results of asking the
question in a straightforward way - 20% of IESG nominees
say they would not have volunteered.
It's not my intent to develop BCP text on ietf@ietf.org, but I do feel
the need to say that we've had a previous suggestion that we could ask
pe
> Coming back to the question at hand, if the nomcom asks people
> whether they would have accepted nominations if their names
> would become public, why would someone lie? And, if they did,
> then which way would the report be biased. I would think that
> people who are inclined to give in
dded list, I've thought to myself 'If I knew only these folks were running, I would have considered ...' I wonder if other people have thought the same.
John L.
_ Original message _____
Subject: Re: Complaining about ADs to Nomcom (Re: Voting (again))
Author: &quo
ocess, IMO.
>
> From: Jari Arkko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: 2005/04/27 Wed PM 01:59:38 EEST
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> CC: Sam Hartman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, ietf@ietf.org,
> Dave Crocker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Re: Complaining about ADs to Nom
Just to agree with JohnL,
NOMCOM has been good about soliciting feedback, but I still think
that we miss out on useful feedback because IETF members cannot
reliably say who is a candidate and who is not. Some candidates
have sent around BCC: mails, from time-to-time, saying that they are
a can
> NOMCOM has been good about soliciting feedback, but I still think that we
> miss out on useful feedback because IETF members cannot reliably say who
> is a candidate and who is not.
YES!
d/
---
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
+1.408.246.8253
dcrocker a t ...
WE'VE MO
Hi,
In the current Nomcom, a few of us compiled lists of all WG contributors
(chairs, advisers, current I-D editors and authors) within each area;
and our Nomcom chair used a script to randomly select a subset from
those lists, and then used a 2-step process to seek feedback. The first
was to
Hi Lakshminath,
Good point. Its possible that you would get (some) more input with
the new system. My guess is though that you'd still need to poll specific
groups to get the input, because people are typically not very
eager to do things unless you remind them. But its likely that
if you get very
65 matches
Mail list logo