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

[Spencer Dawkins at IETF <[e-mail]>]

Just to top-post, I am reading this thread with interest.

I talked with the IESG on Sunday morning about other Nomcom updates, and
where we're headed, is toward a few more small updates - for instance,
we've had a concern raised that having voting members drop out after the
Nomcom is selected means that everyone knows who is "next" on the list of
volunteers, and that's exploitable if you have any influence on a person
selected as a voting member and like the "next" volunteer more.

Some of the updates seem simple, but others are more complex - it turns out
that IAB-IESG-IAOC moves are really a matrix, and one of the moves is in
the BCP, but others are not.

I'm reading the most recent round of 10,000-meter "are we doing the right
thing?" discussion with interest. Where we ended up yesterday, was thinking
that IASA 2.0 is potentially going to change what we ask Nomcom to review,
so maybe we should wait to see what the future workload looks like. On the
other hand, that's what were thinking, and it's not like no one ever grabs
one or more ADs and says "are you NUTS?", and most of the names I've seen
in these threads aren't shy about doing that.

All this to say, thank you for your attention, and we'll be back.

Spencer

On Mon, Nov 13, 2017 at 7:31 AM, Stephen Farrell <[e-mail]>
wrote:

>
> 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
> >
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> ietf-nomcom mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-nomcom
>
>