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

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

Sorry for the slow response to this, but I've been preoccupied
with other issues and more specific comments...

--On Saturday, October 28, 2017 3:36 PM +0100 Stephen Farrell
<[e-mail]> wrote:

>...
> The reason for this mail though is that I figure the utility of
> the liaisons increases as the voting members are less
> experienced IETFers. Highly experienced voting members could
> likely get by with fewer liaisons, but if we're more likely to
> have less experienced voting members the non-voting folks seem
> to me to be a thing to be very careful about ditching, even if
> 6/16 seems like a lot.

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).

Those are not necessarily bad things, but the Nomcom also has
considerable responsibility for determining the strategic
direction of the IETF (IAB included) by the choices it makes.
That makes possible discussions along the lines of lines of "is
that group doing what we want as a body (or even set of ADs) or
is it time to seat a new group that will set new directions"
important.   Liaisons who represent, and are expected to
advocate for, the incumbent body and its definition of what it
should be doing are an impediment to such discussions even while
they may provide useful insights.

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.

These are a tricky balances, both specifically and relative to
the points you make, and I think the Nomcom should be sensitive
them, and should have considerable flexibility about how
liaisons are involved, what information they have access to, etc.

best,
   john