Subject: RE: OPEN ISSUE: Nomcom Process

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 15 May 2003 18:59:40 +0300

Hi Margaret,

I know this has been done in the past, but people nominated (and accepting the
nomination) for IESG/IAB positions should be identified.  I think, at a minimum,
at least current IAB & IESG members who are interested in continuing should
be announced.

John

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ext Margaret Wasserman [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: 15 May, 2003 18:44
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: OPEN ISSUE: Nomcom Process
> 
> 
> 
> 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: "James Kempf" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 15 May 2003 09:50:11 -0700

John,

Making the names of nominated candidates public has been discussed in
the past and has been rejected for a variety of reasons.  Here are
some:

1) It would make the process more overtly political, so candidates
would be tempted to lobby for election. It would also tend to attract
candidates who like that kind of process, to the detriment of those
who might be better qualified on technical grounds but are not
comfortable with a more politicized selection process.
2) For those candidates who are not selected, there could be the
feeling of having been "defeated". This is especially a problem for
cultures where loss of face is a big issue, and so would serve to
discourage their participation.

Nocomm this year was very proactive about soliciting input on
candidates. Those solicited were asked to keep the names confidential,
and most people agree that this request was followed this year, though
it hasn't been as closely followed in past years. Since IAB and IESG
members standing for re-election are already known, and their record
should be an issue in whether or not they are re-elected, I agree that
making public who is up for re-election would be appropriate, however,
to avoid 1) above, it might make sense to just put out the names of
those I* who are up for re-election, regardless of whether they are
interested in serving again or not.

            jak

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 16 May 2003 15:00:11 +0200

I would add that this was discussed *extensively* in the
current nomcom WG and there was no consensus to publish
the names.

I would suggest that it would be ironic if the problem-statement
WG were to commit the sin of re-discussing a solution that another
WG has recently discussed and abandoned.

   Brian

---

From: Margaret Wasserman <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 16 May 2003 10:28:15 -0400

Hi Brian,

>WG has recently discussed and abandoned.

I think that ironic is too mild... perhaps "counter-productive"?

However, there are many ways to increase community input and
visibility into the process without publishing the names of all
of the candidates...  For instance, the criteria that will be
used to select candidates could be published and reviewed by
the community.  Or, the final slates could be published for
community comment before being approved.  I don't know whether
the nomcom WG has considered these alternatives.

The real question is whether we think that there is a problem
here that needs to be solved.  On the problem list, people
identified three problems with the nomcom:

         - The process is too closed and/or does not include
                 enough input from non-leaders within the
                 community.
         - The nomcom shouldn't include IESG/IAB liaisons, as
                 this gives the IESG/IAB too much influence on
                 the selection process.
         - The number of qualified people willing to serve on
                 the IESG is too small -- perhaps due to the
                 level of commitment required?

Since we have a WG currently evaluating the Nomcom process, do
you think that the people who raised these issues should just
take them to that WG?

Margaret

---

From: James M Galvin <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 16 May 2003 10:56:59 -0400 (Eastern Daylight Time)

On Fri, 16 May 2003, Margaret Wasserman wrote:

             - The process is too closed

I know we're not supposed to talk about solutions but during this
iteration of the NOMCOM document it was decided to spell out the
responsibilitites of all the parties in the process.  Of interest here
is the liaisons and the past Chair, who's responsibilities include
watching over the process and reporting anomalies.  No, it does not
"open" up the process but it does ensure the internal, normally
confidential workings of the NOMCOM have some review.

We even added a dispute resolution process for addressing any issues
that may arise.

	     and/or does not include

I'm having trouble believing this is really a problem.  While it is true
the actual discussions of the NOMCOM are confidential, recent NOMCOMs in
particular have worked very hard to get community input.  There are
multiple paths for getting input into the NOMCOM -- email to committee
email address or to individual members via email or directly (they wear
orange dots at IETF meetings) -- and the NOMCOM solicits for input in
multiple ways (multiple requests to ietf, ietf-announce, and wgchairs).

There's also the fact that the NOMCOM operates at a "regular time."  If
you are part of the community you know this and when it's time it is not
that difficult to get input into the process.

This is a management problem inside the NOMCOM.  Certainly a liaison
could dominate a discussion but (again with the solutions, I apologize)
hopefully setting responsibilities for the players and creating a
process for resolving disputes will improve the latter part of the
issue.

This is not a NOMCOM process issue, per se, but I agree it is an IETF
issue.  In my opinion it is not an issue for the NOMCOM working group to
address.

I believe the NOMCOM working group has addressed the first two issues you
suggested in this iteration.  Personally, I do not believe the last
issue is a NOMCOM working group issue but I agree it is a problem to be
addressed by some working group.

Jim

---

From: Margaret Wasserman <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 16 May 2003 11:01:07 -0400

At 10:56 AM 5/16/2003 -0400, James M Galvin wrote:
>Of interest here
>watching over the process and reporting anomalies.

Sounds good.  To whom do they report the anomalies?

>We even added a dispute resolution process for addressing any issues

Good!  It sounds like you guys are doing good work
over there.

BTW, the issues I listed are not all my personal issues.
They are things that were raised on the list.

For instance, I personally think that the nomcom *should*
have liaisons from the IESG and IAB.

Margaret

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 16 May 2003 17:11:54 +0200

> you think that the people who raised these issues should just

Without checking the archive, I can't be sure, but I suspect all
of these points have been made on the ietf-nomcom list already.
But Avri is better placed to comment on this.

   Brian

---

From: Scott Bradner <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 16 May 2003 11:18:35 -0400 (EDT)

> you think that the people who raised these issues should just

yes

---

From: James M Galvin <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 16 May 2003 11:31:16 -0400 (Eastern Daylight Time)

As with most things in the document, the liaison first reports the
anomaly to the NOMCOM Chair.  If it can not be successfully resolved
between them, the liaison reports the alleged issue to the body they
represent.  If that body agrees there is an issue then the liaison
reports it according to the dispute resolution process:

1. Written notice to ISOC President
2. Appointment of arbiter by ISOC President
3. Investigation by arbiter (considered in-the-fold of the NOMCOM and
   the confidentiality requirements so complete cooperation is expected)
4. Decision by arbiter - final, no appeal
5. Summary report that does not violate confidentiality is prepared by
   arbiter and included by NOMCOM Chair in their report when the NOMCOM
   job is completed.

The NOMCOM continues its duties during all of this with one exception:
it may not submit candidates to a confirming body.

Jim