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