Re: [ietf-nomcom] announcing list of willing candidates

[Thomas Narten <[e-mail]>]

SM <[e-mail]> writes:

> At 07:16 12-05-2009, Thomas Narten wrote:
> >I'd still really like to see more context about what the intention
> >here is, rather than just listing rules. How about something like:
> >
> >      The list of nominees willing to serve in positions under review
> >      in the current NomCom cycle is not confidential.  The NomCom should
> >      publish a list of names of willing nominees to the community, in
> >      order to obtain feedback from the community on these nominees.

> I suggest something along the lines of:

>    All deliberations and supporting information that relates to specific
>    nominees, candidates, and confirmed candidates are confidential.
>    The nominating committee retains the discretion to disclose the names
>    of the nominees and the positions in which they are willing to serve to
>    obtain feedback from the community on these nominees.

I think this text is better in some ways, but saying "retains the
discretion to disclose names" does not capture the WG intent, which is
clearly a "SHOULD publish the names".

If every other nomcom decides (based on the inclinations of each
year's particular nomcom) decide not to publish a list at all, I
suspect the community would not be happy.

> I used "names" instead of "list" so that NomCom can publish a partial 
> list of nominees.  Although I did not suggest a time frame for 
> publication, I gather that NomCom will need to have guidelines for 
> that and it will also depend on the circumstances.  But it's up to 
> NomCom to draw that up instead of having text in the draft.  I didn't 
> mention "padding".  The discussion within the IETF Community might 
> influence NomCom to stop that practice.

Generally, I do prefer that the operational details of what to post be
left to the nomcom.

> >For paragraph 4, I've added some text at the end (in CAPS for clarity):
> >
> >      Feedback on willing nominees should always be provided privately
> >      to NomCom.  Willing nominees should not solicit support, and
> >      other IETF community members should not post statements of
> >      support/non-support for nominees IN ANY PUBLIC FORA (E.G.,
> >      MAILING LIST)

> Do we really need to say that the feedback should be provided 
> privately?

Yes. If there is no text saying discussions on the IETF list are not
appropriate, somebody will end up doing it, claiming it is perfectly
OK to do so.

> I have not seen any nominees publicly soliciting support 
> or participants posting statements of support.

In the past we viewed the list of nominees to be confidential and
solicting support would have been frowned upon. By loosening up the
rules, we would presumably also be loosening up the expectations in
other areas to.

> I gather that it's due to the "culture" of the IETF where it is
> understood that such behavior will be viewed as unacceptable.  Once
> we start saying the community "should not do", we'll have everything
> else as acceptable.  I don't think that's a good idea.

You seem to be saying that if we say in a document "you should not do
X", that somehow implies anything "not X" implicitely becomes
allowed. I don't see how that follows. Moreover, the implications of
such reasoning would surely complicate all our documents, that weren't
written with such an assumption

> >Then add:
> >
> >      Discussion: Prior to this document, the names of willing nominees
> >      was considered confidential and not disclosed publically. The
> >      community has long had differing views on this rule. Many have
> >      argued that the lack of a published list made it difficult for
> >      the community to provide adequate feedback to the nomcom. Others
> >      have argued that publishing such a list could lead to campaigning
> >      and other undesireable behaviors.
> >
> >      The intention of relaxing this rule is to have the nomcom publish
> >      a list of willing candidates so that the community has the
> >      ability to provide feedback on those being considered for
> >      service. However, the nomcom is also chartered to find the best
> >      candidate for any particular position. Even after an initial list
> >      of willing nominees has been compiled, the nomcom is expected to
> >      continue to actively recruit additional nominees, especially in
> >      cases where the nominee pool is deemed insufficient. While the
> >      nomcom is encouraged to publish all names when it can, it is not
> >      required to do so in cases that could interfere with its ability
> >      to find the best candidate, e.g., where a nominee is not willing
> >      to have their name published, or where a nominee is found
> >      relatively late in the process, etc.

> Having that as a discussion is fine.  It gives an idea of the intent 
> for the change.  BTW, why is there emphasis on "willing"?

"Willing" comes from earlier text, and indicates the person is
"willing to serve", and by implication, is not a ringer.

> Nomcom requires feedback on all nominees, whether they are willing
> to serve or not.  If you use "willing" in the above, NomCom has less
> leeway for recruitment.

Seems like the nomcom (and the community) should not spend much time
on nominees that are not willing to serve...

> At 07:45 12-05-2009, Thomas Narten wrote:
> >But there is a slippery slope here. And I think we do not want
> >discussion of individual candidates to ever take place on public
> >mailing lists. So some sort of guidance is needed. (We should't try to
> >regulate what goes on in private, however, as enforcement is tricky)

> And how would it be enforced if it's done publicly?  I don't expect a 
> answer to the question as it may be better to leave some things
> unsaid. :-)

Public shaming. If it does, I'd expect the community to say "stop
doing this" and point to the document for justification.

> At 10:48 12-05-2009, Spencer Dawkins wrote:
> >I am wondering if this material needs to be part of a small revision 
> >to Section 3, bullet 6, or if it should go into (for example) an 
> >Informational statement of NomCom principles (such as the excellent 
> >"don't pick a nominee just because you can't find anyone else who's 
> >willing to serve"), that could be discussed and advanced separately.

> I prefer to have any guidance in a separate Informational document.
> Then it cannot be read as telling NomCom how it should do its work.

As said in another post, the guidance we give should be
normative. Otherwise, why bother giving it?

Thomas