OPEN ISSUE: Nomcom Process

[James Kempf]

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

----- Original Message -----
From: <john.loughney at nokia.com>
To: <mrw at windriver.com>; <problem-statement at alvestrand.no>
Sent: Thursday, May 15, 2003 8:59 AM
Subject: RE: OPEN ISSUE: Nomcom Process


> 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:mrw at windriver.com]
> > Sent: 15 May, 2003 18:44
> > To: problem-statement at alvestrand.no
> > 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
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>