Re: Updating BCP 10 -- NomCom

"Murray S. Kucherawy" <> Thu, 12 February 2015 00:46 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8176D1A1AEC for <>; Wed, 11 Feb 2015 16:46:50 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
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 ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 57ZryEO7j0Kx for <>; Wed, 11 Feb 2015 16:46:47 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c05::232]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6EB511A1A65 for <>; Wed, 11 Feb 2015 16:46:47 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with SMTP id em10so559649wid.5 for <>; Wed, 11 Feb 2015 16:46:46 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=gdOFtKBHdYpAkkxs5pX6KCVYZskjHZVq7jykPXOUTYE=; b=A+xpSsbyjslexJZ+Nij/spRqcauWxTwl8o4LmZDM5Bx+qep8G+RZ1ouSKqCJnbyukR 4BX9a5ATgAFqDqJ1CIpyy+gFhrNaGui0a9NVT3PU3/XltS1YSGwHbS65Bi/5Nc+S5fPt UvS8ltWd24XMa82V1vW2tThcuWFbo59fliXci3Dp3UqsyK4avyGnQp+mTd1X+C7HMXB5 Lj7+BBlxrg5Ne/vrl5cj5VuxPR1ABC0F5mx7a11lWsVU5Rp5gU71FOBbLKdELFlTmlR2 xz8bFVnaRvqDNf1Q7Yjh3X37L8VEnmVy4c/9Svae9KAh6IB8ZwBHvkHXzfEX/qFeQfqf /FWw==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by with SMTP id fe5mr2126592wjc.135.1423702006168; Wed, 11 Feb 2015 16:46:46 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with HTTP; Wed, 11 Feb 2015 16:46:46 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <>
Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2015 16:46:46 -0800
Message-ID: <>
Subject: Re: Updating BCP 10 -- NomCom
From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <>
To: Michael StJohns <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7bdc8f9e5800ac050ed974ce
Archived-At: <>
Cc: ietf <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2015 00:46:50 -0000

On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 12:45 PM, Michael StJohns <>

>  A couple of things.
> The nomcom is not either individually nor collectively the "hiring
> manager" for the IETF.  It neither makes the final decision (that's the
> CB's call), nor does it direct the work of the "hired" entity.
> 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.

I think that's a fair point.  I've adjusted her suggested text accordingly.

> The interview should be used to fill in details not clear from the
> questionnaire, so matters of fairness should be addressed when crafting the
> questions, not later when you get around to talking with the candidate.
> Generally, the interview should be used to evaluate the BS factor of the
> answers from the questionnaire and not delve into new fields or hobby
> horses of the interviewers.

The questionnaire is actually not codified in BCP 10 anywhere.  Does anyone
think it needs to be?

> 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.

> Allison - your desire to have 3+ interviewers per interviewee is going to
> contribute to slowing down the process even more.  At this point I see us
> starting to try and begin the process a full two years before confirmation.
> (Yup - hyperbole, but seriously, we're spending WAY too much calendar time
> from first indication of candidacy to selection).

I also disagree with this.  I served on NomComs 2013 and 2014, we did it
this way, and it worked rather well.