Re: Updating BCP 10 -- NomCom

"Murray S. Kucherawy" <superuser@gmail.com> Thu, 19 February 2015 04:56 UTC

Return-Path: <superuser@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C1F391A876D for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 18 Feb 2015 20:56:17 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
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 kYGp1DQBm0b3 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 18 Feb 2015 20:56:15 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-wg0-x232.google.com (mail-wg0-x232.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c00::232]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9CA041A8768 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 18 Feb 2015 20:56:14 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-wg0-f50.google.com with SMTP id l2so4992008wgh.9 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 18 Feb 2015 20:56:12 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=ydh0kvI1GSyV5zAIF7VphXkuFSG9XCYq9NASJ9kqwzA=; b=kMv6TkL3BMR9VGFv5Hb0y0fHmYcUGDS4wWSUo3omjImEoZ5b8tLHfTS1n9HXE9zc3S e1TGC5SxUflFCybBW7hAt8I2e6Hm/VmsY6K55bxq54uCeQULYVYEGl1M921RaCtTms5d P7cvhggbgyfoM0to9nwRhA34MqmWNAAAeE3AfKv2NIY2EW63DM0bj1RNWtEnHI/ppu4h LL5XvV95F12O65dzGkfEdgslMfHJQP9ZrWDKQQScFCUWGQPmeXJUTJeo3JCVVY/xjdF7 WIGC9VXxGoQEmHFbDdKzJ1LBgOGtBI7I2DhtuQ5sYgTQbGIBxUKMTQsU/oqDufa/ID50 h5Lw==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.194.179.194 with SMTP id di2mr5566697wjc.4.1424321772619; Wed, 18 Feb 2015 20:56:12 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.27.179.146 with HTTP; Wed, 18 Feb 2015 20:56:12 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <CAP8yD=uiYZF5zQm13YWyyJpx8xaKsP3R=FhseQo+8_m7XntXtQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAL0qLwZk=k-CWLte_ChK9f1kzLwMOTRyi7AwFa8fLjBsextBcA@mail.gmail.com> <CAP8yD=uky=fbJNA5KjCSk3q+u036++c+pnR_3inmvnOECxRRKA@mail.gmail.com> <CAL0qLwYsSXBYjrQ54M9VFHdp1htrjbLX-ZQjzZ78WeLzPjzZXQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAP8yD=v1djPpXhQ-+=esxRKVpuzUcs57S5e4auChdjdMfHP7vw@mail.gmail.com> <54dbbf33.066b8c0a.72fd.ffff84d7SMTPIN_ADDED_MISSING@mx.google.com> <CAL0qLwaJN1iAUKgCWAR4cw0ttNk6pP33=odYYM3oniJ3M8T=Bg@mail.gmail.com> <CAP8yD=uiYZF5zQm13YWyyJpx8xaKsP3R=FhseQo+8_m7XntXtQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2015 23:56:12 -0500
Message-ID: <CAL0qLwYxFpqNT3Z2Fq3J7x6rmfbwvotKyYKW0L+WF-k6xWkK=Q@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Updating BCP 10 -- NomCom
From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <superuser@gmail.com>
To: Allison Mankin <allison.mankin@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e01419d1c4d8e79050f69c165
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/1KUISb-irHEmy1T5hTt8EOxHZ-Q>
Cc: ietf <ietf@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2015 04:56:17 -0000

On Wed, Feb 18, 2015 at 2:07 PM, Allison Mankin <allison.mankin@gmail.com>
wrote:

>
> The Nomcom is and always has been a "search committee" and as such it
>> gathers and winnows candidates before proposing them for confirmation.
>> Indeed, there is no bar to the Nomcom proposing multiple candidates for a
>> position and allowing the CB to choose its preference - that hasn't
>> actually been done, but its not barred.
>>
> ​AJM:  Mike, I have always wanted the Nomcom to be like a search
> committee, but on the other hand, search committees do produce short lists
> as you say, and every time I've suggested this as a way to offset some of
> the problems with the unevenness of the Nomcom participants' skills, in
> every hallway chat I've ever had, I've received massive pushback.  So while
> the confirming bodies approve the selection, the selection is made by the
> Nomcom.  When confirming bodies request an alternative selection, this is
> not something that can be seen by us outside the process, but the hallways
> tell me also that Nomcoms who have experienced this are frustrated and
> angry.  Therefore, we should perhaps add something to clarify that the
> selection/the hire as it were, is really made by the confirming body, and
> see how that fares in discussion.
>
> Actually as I read Section 5.14, a NomCom can't present the confirming
body with a short list.  It specifically says "a single candidate for each
open position" and then goes on to include what backing materials have to
be provided.

> AJM:  Also, hiring manager in my part of the world does not imply that the
> person becomes a supervisor of the selectee - the term is used for the
> person who makes the hire happen.
>
> I think that's a fair point.  I've adjusted her suggested text accordingly.
> ​AJM: What do you think about explaining what a search committee is, in
> that case, and noting the option to send short lists rather than single
> selections.  ​
>
> It appears to be moot in the face of what 5.14 says.  Are we looking to
open discussion of changing that?

>
>
>> The digression to "thinking slow" is interesting, but somewhat trendy.
>> Next year there will be another interview and decision method that will be
>> trendy and its unclear why this "thinking slow" would be a better choice
>> than next year's flavor and why it should be immortalized in the next
>> version of 3777.  I would instead focus on the virtues of clarity,
>> completeness and fairness and leave the rest of it to the best abilities of
>> the chosen Nomcom.  In any event, attempting to "program" the Nomcom
>> members to a specific behavior pattern will be unsuccessful.
>>
>
> I tend to agree with this, though since we do have an appendix that talks
> about "oral tradition", there's probably little harm in including this
> stuff in a similar appendix.  We could even label it clearly as something
> that worked well for NomCom 2013.
>
> ​AJM:   I disagree with the idea that advising people to be deliberative
> in their review of candidates is trendy and could easily be superseded by a
> next trend.  I don't care if the text needs to not reference a social
> science expert on this, which I did in part because IETFers are rather
> contrarian, and can be hard to make a plain and simple human resources
> point.   I also think that the previous nomcom, where I was Past Chair,
> practiced slow thinking and/or deliberative, thorough review, though
> sometimes I found I had to help out.  My observation: the candidates who
> are not famous enough to be recognized by most of the voting members what
> their varied usually were summarized incompletely in the initial review
> discussions - relevant accomplishments were omitted from discussion until
> the thorough process (and some reminders) got those back onto the table.
> Maybe text that says this more directly rather than by means of a social
> science reference could be included.  I feel strongly that it is not a
> given that Nomcoms will take their time and give enough diligence, given
> the other pressures on them, especially time pressures.
>
>
I think removing the specific references to "slow thinking" and doing some
text massaging still captures the point you're trying to make.  I'll
include something in -03, which I'll post shortly.

-MSK