Re: [ietf-nomcom] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-dawkins-iesg-nomcom-advisor-iaoc-00.txt

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

--On Wednesday, August 2, 2017 16:30 -0500 Spencer Dawkins at
IETF <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Dear Nomcom Process Devotees,
> 
> Alissa has asked me to put together a short(!) draft that will
> remind future Nomcoms to request IAOC to provide an Advisor.
> 
> Details are below.
> 
> I'd like to discuss this draft on this mailing list initially.
> 
> Please comment and question as appropriate.

Spencer,

While I concur with those who have indicated that this draft is
ok (or close) assuming that is what the community wants to do, I
want to raise a question about the latter that may or may not be
directly relevant to the document.  

As time has passed and the Nomcom has apparently become
increasingly dependent on questionnaires, interviews, and
Advisors rather than first-hand knowledge of possible candidates
by the voting members, questions of influences on the Nomcom
become increasingly important.  For the Nomcom to invite someone
from a particular body to attend a meeting or call to offer
advice on specific issues (consistent with RFC 7437 Section 4.3,
second paragraph), a standing Advisor (or Liaison) role is
another matter and, other than the technical considerations
about oversight of the Nomcom process and the "sitting member"
requirements that you describe in Section 4 of the I-D, it is
not clear that you (and the draft) anticipate any difference in
practice.

My concern about all of these roles is the potential for the
appearance of undue influence.  Is a particular Liaison or
Advisor likely to defend a colleague in the same organization?
Or exaggerate faults to get rid of one who is personally
unpopular with the Liaison or Advisor (or even the whole body)?
Is the presence of an incumbent likely to have a chilling effect
on a community member who wants to make a well-thought-out
argument for, e.g., throwing as many of the incumbents out as
possible and starting over on that body?  (I know the answer to
the latter is "yes", the only questions are how widespread and
important it is).)   When the Nomcom was first designed and the
community assumed that a significant number, perhaps most, of
its members would have sufficient experience with likely
candidates, that was, itself, a safeguard against abuses.  Now,
that is not so clear. 

So it seems to me that we should be at least considering:

(1) Encouraging Nomcoms to ask whatever questions about
operation, job requirements, etc., seem appropriate of various
bodies without needing to rely on Liaisons or Advisors for that
rule.

(2) Trying to figure out how to isolate Liaisons and Advisors
from input (especially informal input) to the Nomcom about the
membership, operations at a personal level, and possible
candidates for their (and probably other) bodies and to do so in
a way that increases community confidence that the Nomcom is
seeking out and considering all of the information it wants or
needs rather than even potentially being unduly influenced by
representatives of bodies to which it is making appointments.
While I agree with the observations about allowing an IAD to
influence appointments to the body that hires and oversees him
or her, very nearly the same observation could apply to allowing
an IAB or IESG member to influence choices of people he or she
will ultimately need to work, with, who will support or impede
their agendas, etc.

(3) Encourage the Nomcom to invite Liaisons or Advisors to only
participate in discussions for which they are directly and
obviously relevant and, in the interest of transparency and
increased confidence in the process, document those choices for
the community

(4) More than 20 years into the current model, perhaps many of
the same arguments apply to "sitting members" of other bodies
that you have made for the IAOC appointee.  Similarly, perhaps
it is time to consider whether the job of overseeing the
propriety of the Nomcom process ought to be linked with giving
the Nomcom advice about particular bodies or even particular
candidates or appointments.

best,
   john