Subject: OPEN ISSUE: Nomcom Process

From: Margaret Wasserman <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 15 May 2003 11:44:14 -0400

The process document currently says:

>We may also need to modify our Nomcom processes so that IETF
>participants who are not part of the IETF leadership can have more
>visibility into the Nomcom process and more proportional input into
>leadership selection.  [OPEN ISSUE: Do we have consensus that these
>are real problems that need to be solved?]

I believe that this is a real problem, and that we should
modify our Nomcom processes to do two (related) things:

         - Give the community more visibility into the
                 process.
         - Get more feedback on potential candidates from
                 the community.  Currently, some candidates
                 are discussed with the leaders (IESG/IAB
                 members and WG chairs), but the greater
                 community doesn't even know who is being
                 considered.

Margaret

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 16 May 2003 11:37:01 -0400

>                  community doesn't even know who is being

I think it's reasonable for nomcom to make public their selection
criteria, and perhaps even to invite public comment on them, as long as
it doesn't get to the point of discussing individual candidates (either
by name or by being too specific).

I am not sure whether it's reasonable for noncom to disclose the list of
parties under consideration.  On one hand it would invite wider public
feedback about specific individuals, which would help avoid unpleasant
surprises.  On the other hand it would expose would-be candidates to
potential "loss of face" at not being chosen - and invite comparison
to those who were chosen - even if the reason for that particular choice
turned out to be unrelated to the candidates' technical or personal
qualifications.

Keith

---

From: "Charles E. Perkins" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 16 May 2003 09:21:26 -0700

> turned out to be unrelated to the candidates' technical or personal

Somehow I'm imagining that anyone with enough experience
and management skills to be a good AD should also have enough
experience and stability to be able to handle rejection.
What about all the IEEE and other organizations, where
candidates sometimes lose?  What makes IETF special in
this matter?

I think we should enable community input to nomcom about
all nominees.  To be fair, though, I am sure that the
nomcom _does_ get input about returning IESG members.

Regards,
Charlie P.

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 16 May 2003 13:11:09 -0400

> > I am not sure whether it's reasonable for noncom to disclose the
> > list of parties under consideration.  On one hand it would invite
> > wider public feedback about specific individuals, which would help
> > avoid unpleasant surprises.  On the other hand it would expose
> > would-be candidates to potential "loss of face" at not being chosen
> > - and invite comparison to those who were chosen - even if the
> > reason for that particular choice turned out to be unrelated to the
> > candidates' technical or personal qualifications.
> 

oh, I agree.  actually I almost said in the earlier message that you
need a fairly tough skin to be a good AD anyway - you *will* get sharply
criticized no matter what decisions you make or how good they are.  but
at least once you are an AD you get the prestige of the AD job as
compensation.  and "rejection" isn't always a good description of the
the reason that another candidate is chosen- though it will widely
be assumed to be the reason.

put it this way - there are already enough barriers to discourage
potential IESG (and to some extent IAB) candidates.  do you want to
narrow the pool of available candidates even further?

Keith