Re: [ietf-nomcom] Experiment in "full transparency"

[John C Klensin <[e-mail]>]

Rich,

A general observation about some of your suggestions...

There is a case to be made for an IESG (and IAB) that operate as
a closed, friendly, and self-perpetuating club.  It promotes
stability and consistency of views and policies and helps out
individuals and companies who like either the status quo or
positioning themselves within it.  If that is what one wants,
then having a lot of liaisons who participate in every respect
other that voting, especially when the typical Nomcom member is
a little short on personal knowledge about the IETF and how it
functions and about individual incumbents and other candidates
is a great idea.  Having the bodies for which people are being
selected appoint voting Nomcom members might be even better.

There is also a case to be made that a community member who
fears retaliation from speaking out against a particular IESG
member or identifies bad behavior by that person really doesn't
have sufficient backbone to participate in the IETF and we (and
the Nomcom don't really need to hear from them).  Again, if that
is what we want, loading up the Nomcom with liaisons whose
confidentiality requirements are less clear than voting members
and who might be able to hide the source of leaks just by heir
numbers and for IESG-appointed Momcom members (like the
liaisons, at least partially responsible to their appointing
bodies) could be quite strong.

However, I think we have been there.  The so-called Kobe affair
and our current organizational structure --including the Nomcom
itself-- were the result of a self-perpetuating IAB which
(perhaps inevitably) got out of touch with the community and
that, the community concluded, could be "fixed" only by
discarding and replacing the organizational structure and
retiring most of the membership.  

Because I worry about those issues, I am concerned every time a
Nomcom sets itself up so that only comments on individual
candidates are solicited, making no provision for comments about
the overall makeup of a body and how it is working with the
community or important topics.    I am concerned that we have
too many liaisons and too few constraints on their behavior
(particularly what they are expected or allowed to discuss with
appointing bodies after they are appointed), the information to
which they will have access. and their participation in
interviews.  I am even concerned about statements from bodies to
which the Nomcom will make appointments about what those bodies
want or need and what roles should be considered in evaluating
candidates-- not because the statements are a bad idea, but
because there is no obvious mechanism for other members of the
community to review those statements and express dissenting
views about what the community needs or should have.

There is probably a good balance among those points of view, but
I believe it is one the community should be discussing in an
open way that addresses the actual choices, not by tweaking
Nomcom membership without thinking through the likely
consequences.

best,
    john