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

Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie> Sun, 12 November 2017 23:31 UTC

Return-Path: <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>
X-Original-To: ietf-nomcom@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf-nomcom@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8EAED1241F5 for <ietf-nomcom@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 12 Nov 2017 15:31:27 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.301
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.301 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cs.tcd.ie
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ebcLD5LJCML0 for <ietf-nomcom@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 12 Nov 2017 15:31:25 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mercury.scss.tcd.ie (mercury.scss.tcd.ie [134.226.56.6]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AFF5C1205F0 for <ietf-nomcom@ietf.org>; Sun, 12 Nov 2017 15:31:25 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mercury.scss.tcd.ie (Postfix) with ESMTP id DACA4BE47; Sun, 12 Nov 2017 23:31:22 +0000 (GMT)
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at scss.tcd.ie
Received: from mercury.scss.tcd.ie ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mercury.scss.tcd.ie [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id SkDUf2Y026WD; Sun, 12 Nov 2017 23:31:21 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from [31.133.148.54] (dhcp-9436.meeting.ietf.org [31.133.148.54]) by mercury.scss.tcd.ie (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 47D5ABDD8; Sun, 12 Nov 2017 23:31:20 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cs.tcd.ie; s=mail; t=1510529481; bh=mZUQ41BjPcpCnlraCxRupvStuDrB9DMweF3nIrwBiY8=; h=Subject:To:Cc:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=XmTIROD8YfyAt7lqbpdwwJ/Cz2kOhk08V6DVPnR+6FsAIgm29EckGbPKbVx1sByl3 c7btvRDW+3EtZUsFlvnDWxpkyVB3aSCmRvh5pTeZqZlVBR4821ghL8g5j+xXv9+Xp1 x61kqKCUJZTSJQuwEoLt6Bt7cYXJCyaT2h+YcO+Q=
To: S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@elandsys.com>, John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>, ietf-nomcom@ietf.org
References: <6.2.5.6.2.20171016135236.12dcaa60@elandnews.com> <3E158B61-DCF7-485C-B350-DA14B2B8CBDA@akamai.com> <CAA=duU0aiLUzZAP3vmS2tTzxEinzc4hA0UFpd3_dprkjDHnqkg@mail.gmail.com> <FF365C9F-6CE1-41A5-82BB-F15CFB748492@akamai.com> <CAA=duU2k+8-+M2vj5Tk_czJA_VL0ZJ8Z8xhpo0zqu-JqY7mWNQ@mail.gmail.com> <8CB73C9E-9BF2-4252-A98A-D5AA1FE597DC@akamai.com> <DE6132DBB7813E23C606B56B@PSB> <5BDAF4B0-FE20-4940-B436-683209FAC9C9@akamai.com> <70A26384995DDC19DC8E2CAC@PSB> <09f301d34fb0$fe5925d0$fb0b7170$@akayla.com> <C2001C2C-567F-4BBA-8549-26F8D25DC1A3@akamai.com> <5c51ab08-13f7-0579-6d1e-4e73575c10e4@cs.tcd.ie> <439F201200F4BC596F7A0343@JcK-HP5.jck.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20171112150153.12178b90@elandnews.com>
From: Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>
Openpgp: id=D66EA7906F0B897FB2E97D582F3C8736805F8DA2; url=
Message-ID: <a9a5676e-467a-40c1-f666-c26c3545585a@cs.tcd.ie>
Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2017 23:31:16 +0000
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.4.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <6.2.5.6.2.20171112150153.12178b90@elandnews.com>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg="pgp-sha256"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="hISX9NBgkTKxuoO0GCnuRp9khErIufgSg"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-nomcom/OvoCLVDPZI6s3BawHLfFRkzyaSc>
Subject: Re: [ietf-nomcom] Experiment in "full transparency"
X-BeenThere: ietf-nomcom@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussions of possible revisions to the NomCom process <ietf-nomcom.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf-nomcom>, <mailto:ietf-nomcom-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ietf-nomcom/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf-nomcom@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-nomcom-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-nomcom>, <mailto:ietf-nomcom-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2017 23:31:27 -0000

FWIW, my take on your questions...

On 12/11/17 23:17, S Moonesamy wrote:
> Hi John,
> At 09:24 AM 12-11-2017, John C Klensin wrote:
>> I think this is true.  At the same time, having liaisons present
>> who explain "how things work" in the relevant bodies creates an
>> inherent bias toward keeping them working that way, possibly as
>> well as reinforcing some tendencies toward returning incumbents
>> (if only in the interest of stability and continuity).
> 
> It seems that it is not clear whether the non-member of NomCom serves as
> a liaison or an advisor.  Is it up to the liaison to tell NomCom: "don't
> pay too much attention to what is written; this is how things actually
> work" and implying that it should be kept like that?
> 

I think both liaison and advisor is right and yes I'd like that
liaisons do make the kind of statement you quote above. I'd not
like that liaisons try to direct what nomcom does and yes it
could be a fine line to tread.

>> I have similar concerns about liaisons participating in
>> interviews.  Depending on dynamics within the leadership bodies
>> (not just the one a particular liaison comes from) those
>> liaisons may bring strong biases for or against an incumbent to
>> the interview or reports to the rest of the Nomcom about the
>> interview as well as insights into how an incumbent is or is not
>> effective and how they play well with others.
> 
> Is there a rationale for a liaison to participate in a NomCom
> interview?  I don't have a strong opinion about whether where it causes
> a bias for or against an incumbent as it is up to NomCom members to make
> the decision(s).

IIRC, it helped with logistics - 10 voting members trying to
interview O(50) folks during the November IETF when they all
have other stuff to do is hard to schedule, so having 5 or
6 more folks who can help in interviews, e.g. taking notes or
ensuring that questions aren't forgotten/skipped seems to me
to be useful. When I was the IESG's liaison I avoided any of
the interviews for AD roles, and only sat in on one or maybe
two of the other interviews, I think other liaisons helped
out more.

S.

> 
> Regards,
> S. Moonesamy
>