Re: On the confidentiality of the information and communication within the nomcom context

Dave Crocker <dhc2@dcrocker.net> Wed, 19 March 2008 03:43 UTC

Return-Path: <ietf-bounces@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: ietfarch-ietf-archive@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietfarch-ietf-archive@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 284CD3A6A95; Tue, 18 Mar 2008 20:43:20 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -100.537
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-100.537 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.100, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_ORG=0.611, RDNS_NONE=0.1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id JllGBeueSOtU; Tue, 18 Mar 2008 20:43:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AE78D3A6B5A; Tue, 18 Mar 2008 20:43:15 -0700 (PDT)
X-Original-To: ietf@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B9DA83A6A95 for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 18 Mar 2008 20:43:13 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 0nmLv6O63j5d for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 18 Mar 2008 20:43:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sbh17.songbird.com (unknown [IPv6:2001:470:1:76:0:ffff:4834:7146]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9ED123A68A5 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 18 Mar 2008 20:43:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.0.3] (adsl-67-124-148-133.dsl.pltn13.pacbell.net [67.124.148.133]) (authenticated bits=0) by sbh17.songbird.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m2J3elsO023693 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Tue, 18 Mar 2008 20:40:52 -0700
Message-ID: <47E08B3F.4020202@dcrocker.net>
Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2008 20:40:47 -0700
From: Dave Crocker <dhc2@dcrocker.net>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.12 (Windows/20080213)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: On the confidentiality of the information and communication within the nomcom context
References: <47DC8FB9.80405@qualcomm.com> <47DD898E.4080802@gmail.com> <47DF2CEB.6090903@alvestrand.no> <20080319014728.7CE1F3A6ACD@core3.amsl.com> <47E07917.6000403@dcrocker.net> <47E080BF.9080604@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <47E080BF.9080604@gmail.com>
X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV 0.92/6297/Tue Mar 18 20:15:18 2008 on sbh17.songbird.com
X-Virus-Status: Clean
X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.0 (sbh17.songbird.com [72.52.113.17]); Tue, 18 Mar 2008 20:40:53 -0700 (PDT)
Cc: IETF Discussion <ietf@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
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>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: ietf-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: ietf-bounces@ietf.org


Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> On 2008-03-19 15:23, Dave Crocker wrote:
>> Michael StJohns wrote:
>>> At 10:46 PM 3/17/2008, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
>>>> *The names of people nominated should be made public.
>>>> *The names of the people who agreed to serve if selected should be kept 
>>>> secret.
>>> +1
>>> Open enough to get feedback, but kind to the rejected candidates. 
>> +1
> 
> It's very tempting to say +1 without thinking about the unintended
> consequences.

Brian, many thinks are easy to say without thinking things through.

Or without reading carefully.


> Clearly, if NomCom published a proposed slate and ask for comments
> (to be kept confidential) they would get a lot of comments. However,
> if they published a proposed slate and said "we have now sent this
> to the Confirming Body", something rather different would probably
> happen. 

Since the proposal was for disclosure much earlier in the process, what is the 
point of introducing the issue of being selected by Nomcom?

Nothing in the proposal imposes additional tasks to the confirming body.


> 1. Add a new period to the timeline for the community to send
> comments to NomCom and for NomCom to consider those comments,
> and possibly change the slate as a result (in which case, GOTO 1).

The proposal was for disclosure of those nominated.

Hence, any public comment would be accepted during the same period as the Nomcom 
normally seeks comments explicitly.  No change in timeline is needed.


> 2. Explicitly reduce the confirming bodies' role to verifying
> that due process has been followed, since there is clearly no
> scope for further debate about the chosen nominees after step 1.

Frankly this sounds like an entirely independent issue, unrelated to the current 
proposal.

d/

-- 

   Dave Crocker
   Brandenburg InternetWorking
   bbiw.net
_______________________________________________
IETF mailing list
IETF@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf