OPEN ISSUE: Nomcom Process

[Brian E Carpenter]

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

James Kempf wrote:
> 
> 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