Re: [ietf-nomcom] Experiment in "full transparency"
"Peter Yee" <peter@akayla.com> Sat, 28 October 2017 05:52 UTC
Return-Path: <peter@akayla.com>
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 54AF813F7BA for <ietf-nomcom@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 27 Oct 2017 22:52:45 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.699
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.699 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-2.8, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 P6_TuHnlOsKQ for <ietf-nomcom@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 27 Oct 2017 22:52:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from p3plsmtpa11-03.prod.phx3.secureserver.net (p3plsmtpa11-03.prod.phx3.secureserver.net [68.178.252.104]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7AA9E13F7BE for <ietf-nomcom@ietf.org>; Fri, 27 Oct 2017 22:52:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from spectre ([173.8.184.78]) by :SMTPAUTH: with SMTP id 8K30eGOz6WIt78K30eIOJB; Fri, 27 Oct 2017 22:52:43 -0700
From: Peter Yee <peter@akayla.com>
To: 'John C Klensin' <john-ietf@jck.com>, "'Salz, Rich'" <rsalz@akamai.com>
Cc: 'NomComDiscussion' <ietf-nomcom@ietf.org>, 'NomCom Chair 2017' <nomcom-chair-2017@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>
In-Reply-To: <70A26384995DDC19DC8E2CAC@PSB>
Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2017 22:52:51 -0700
Message-ID: <09f301d34fb0$fe5925d0$fb0b7170$@akayla.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0
Thread-Index: AQHZSaYsx4qwwSlZuGhKbfEqyF5lLgEZi4g+AkfemsQCQ+kM+AJICYdgAjAGpwgBkw+ixQIJ8TfhAZFDL4yicmrQ8A==
Content-Language: en-us
X-CMAE-Envelope: MS4wfCU3zVFiKLO3h2FaNs+IyHE1IpxDLeYs1A5IAw6FWcs5Ub0Wj7fqToFs3T9BfwljDCFlooCYSE22BS0t575it9J7RtP0Hb25j9JYJqclgvcCujjTkIs/ yXt1N0dHixfiEOcj8xN422KueIJAyECUPfcTHWXLKmypkC6ucBZJu92DCp+OEIgBYMDKRbv+pk6Vfem1yzR8MyPcA7bF6F1rnJbuYKY+LzbcBhPrfcS98Gry mbwjy6EwL+Y5Q/ivLH1aWQ==
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-nomcom/z6WrS_NKjo3OP0SiQtxczhp2yLo>
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: Sat, 28 Oct 2017 05:52:45 -0000
John, (I'm not on the ietf-nomcom list.) Responding to the items below: (a) The datatracker doesn't have a lot of good tools at the moment for general input to the NomCom. I might be able to turn on feedback for the IESG as a general position, since we have it as a sort of placeholder for the overarching IESG role description, but I don't have a similar capability for the IAB and IAOC. This is something you might want to engage Henrik and the tools team on as a feature that would be useful in the future. I can see how it would be useful to ensure that all relevant input is stored in one place for easier consideration. For now, the NomCom can take email input on anything that doesn't neatly fit into the datatracker. While that's a bit of a manual process, I have been collecting such input so that it can be raised during deliberations. (b) If there's a community concern that some input should not be seen by the liaisons or other advisers who are not voting members of the NomCom, perhaps the datatracker could be modified to allow a different key pair to be used in securing general comments. At the moment, the datatracker uses a single private/public key pair to secure all community feedback and nominee questionnaires. I suppose in the interim, sensitive comments can be sent to me directly and I can distribute them solely to the voting membership if it comes to that. I can't really speak to the perception that the NomCom is not representative of the IETF community, since the IETF community sometimes strikes me as the elephant that is being described by the blind men. Needless to say, RFC 7437 puts requirements on attendance at a certain number of recent IETF meetings, but not on what level of participation that attendance entails. A rewrite of 7437 could certainly change the criteria for NomCom member selection, but that would require care so that we don't end up making the requirements so onerous that the NomCom makeup is either a foregone conclusion or merely preserving of the status quo. Serving on last year's NomCom, I found the breadth of experience and backgrounds to be invigorating. It's a tricky thing to find the right balance and I don't claim to have the answer there. Kind regards, -Peter -----Original Message----- From: John C Klensin [mailto:john-ietf@jck.com] Sent: Monday, October 23, 2017 4:17 PM To: Salz, Rich Cc: NomComDiscussion; NomCom Chair 2017 Subject: Re: [ietf-nomcom] Experiment in "full transparency" --On Monday, October 23, 2017 20:07 +0000 "Salz, Rich" <rsalz@akamai.com> wrote: > John, > > Thanks for the detailed and thoughtful response. > > "There is probably a good balance among those points of view, > but I believe it is one the community should be discussing in an open > way that addresses the actual choices, not by tweaking Nomcom > membership without thinking through the likely consequences." > > Yes. I would like to help address this. A bar BoF at 100, a real BoF > at 101? Thoughts on how to move forward? While I tried to write a note that was as balanced as possible, I've actually got strong opinions on the subject (including questions you didn't raise) and so might not be the best person to ask. In particular, I'd like to hear from Peter (explicitly copied in case he isn't following the list) (a) what he and this year's Nomcom intend to do to allow comments about how assorted bodies are working as a whole and how particular appointments (or retirements) might affect that, including advice about what criteria the Nomcom should use in its deliberations, and (b) how those comments and others that might reflect on liaisons or other incumbent can be adequately secured to protect those who make the comments from retaliation and other adverse behavior. In addition, there is a question that is much broader than the issues you have raised. The Nomcom model was designed at a time when we could reasonably predict that most plausible candidates would be personally known to a large fraction of the Nomcom members and we could also predict that the volunteers for the Nomcom would represent a good cross-section of the people who were actually actively contributing to the IETF. Obviously if the Nomcom volunteer pool doesn't represent a good cross-section of those doing work in the IETF, the random selection process is statistically unlikely to yield such a cross-section either. It is fairly clear that, as the IETF has evolved, the first assumption is no longer correct. Many of us believe the second isn't either. There is an additional problem, which is that we have an increasing number of active remote participants who are not only not eligible to volunteer for the Nomcom but who are typically not represented on it by people with similar concerns. If, for example, we had an IESG or IAOC candidate who was opposed to either remote participation or to making adjustments needed to make it work well (I am aware of no such candidates; if I were, I'd find another example), it would be important, not just to point that issue out to the Nomcom but for there to be someone on the Nomcom to advocate for the importance of that as an issue to be considered. In a way, that is just a generalization of your argument for more liaisons and/or specially-appointed Nomcom members and giving at least some of them a vote. But it, and I think your reasoning, also suggest that the IETF is no longer homogeneous enough that random selection from a single Nomcom volunteer pool is serving us well any more... and that argues for reconsidering the whole process and model, not a discussion of incremental patches. best, john So I have to
- [ietf-nomcom] Experiment in "full transparency" S Moonesamy
- Re: [ietf-nomcom] Experiment in "full transparenc… Salz, Rich
- Re: [ietf-nomcom] Experiment in "full transparenc… Andrew G. Malis
- Re: [ietf-nomcom] Experiment in "full transparenc… Andrew G. Malis
- Re: [ietf-nomcom] Experiment in "full transparenc… Salz, Rich
- Re: [ietf-nomcom] Experiment in "full transparenc… Andrew G. Malis
- Re: [ietf-nomcom] Experiment in "full transparenc… Salz, Rich
- Re: [ietf-nomcom] Experiment in "full transparenc… S Moonesamy
- Re: [ietf-nomcom] Experiment in "full transparenc… John C Klensin
- Re: [ietf-nomcom] Experiment in "full transparenc… James Galvin
- Re: [ietf-nomcom] Experiment in "full transparenc… Salz, Rich
- Re: [ietf-nomcom] Experiment in "full transparenc… Salz, Rich
- Re: [ietf-nomcom] Experiment in "full transparenc… John C Klensin
- Re: [ietf-nomcom] Experiment in "full transparenc… Peter Yee
- Re: [ietf-nomcom] Experiment in "full transparenc… Salz, Rich
- Re: [ietf-nomcom] Experiment in "full transparenc… Stephen Farrell
- Re: [ietf-nomcom] Experiment in "full transparenc… Salz, Rich
- Re: [ietf-nomcom] Experiment in "full transparenc… John C Klensin
- Re: [ietf-nomcom] Experiment in "full transparenc… Stephen Farrell
- Re: [ietf-nomcom] Experiment in "full transparenc… S Moonesamy
- Re: [ietf-nomcom] Experiment in "full transparenc… Stephen Farrell
- Re: [ietf-nomcom] Experiment in "full transparenc… Spencer Dawkins at IETF