Subject: RE: NOMCOM term limits... Re: Now there seems to be lackof communicaiton here...

From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 5 Sep 2006 10:04:12 -0700

> From: Noel Chiappa [mailto:[email-masked]] 

>     > The point of NOMCON was to maintain power in the hands of the
>     > establishment and to ensure that there was no effective means of
>     > accountability.
> 
> This is flat-out incorrect. The NomCom was created 
> *precisely* to bring accountability to I* management 
> positions, in the wake of the IAB's problematic actions at 
> the time of the CLNP recommendation.

I think you are being naïve here.

If you want accountability you have elections. You introduce a nominating committee or an electoral college precisely to weaken accountability and maintain power in the 'right' hands.

The NOMCON is by design accountable to nobody. Members cannot influence their selection in any (legitimate) way. Once appointed a NOMCON member cannot expect to be reappointed. 

The string 'accountability' does not appear anywhere in the text of RFC 1396. The key passage dealling with voting states:

"As indicated above, there was a strong feeling in the community that
   the IAB and IESG members should be selected with the consensus of the
   community.  A natural mechanism for doing this is through formal
   voting.  However, a formal voting process requires formal delineation
   of who's enfranchised.  One of the strengths of the IETF is there
   isn't any formal membership requirement, nor is there a tradition of
   decision through  votes. "

The conclusion is clearly based on a false premise. The criteria for qualifying for NOMCON membership are now well established and the NOMCON qualification criteria are clearly a sufficient basis for the franchise.

> Yes, the NomComm structure does retain control of I* 
> management positions within the I* community, but what are 
> the other options: give them over to national governments (as 
> the ISO does), or the UN? Somehow I doubt that would improve 
> the results.
> 
> If what you're really saying is that what you don't like is 
> that *you* don't have any influence over the results, I'm not 
> sure that the rest of us would agree that that's a problem.

On the contrary, the current situation provides me with a rather extensive ability to influence the results should I choose to. The NOMCON mechanism is considerably more open to organization by someone with political experience.

Consider the following situation, imagine that there is a vacancy for a security area director, consider further that I wish for nefarious reasons to secure the nomination of a particular candidate which left to its own devices the NOMCON would be unlikely to choose. The first step in such a campaign would be to draw up a matrix of the members of the NOMCON, the people who they are most likely to respond to etc. It is unlikely that I need more than four people prominent in the Security world to make a concerted recommendation in favor of my candidate. I could do this without speaking to any member of the NOMCON myself.

If you were a member of the NOMCON trying to fill a hard to fill post such as Security or Routing and you had a series of people prominent in the area come to you recommending a particular candidate the chances are that you would follow the recommendation.

The point here is that none of this is 'wrong' or 'outside the rules'. The only real difference is the organization. 

My objection to the NOMCON process is not that I lack personal influence. The scenario above is only one example. 

My objection is that the process by which the posts are appointed limits their influence.

>     > The problem here is that we are now running an 
> infrastructure that a
>     > billion people and about half of international commerce 
> depends upon.
> 
> Yes, that explains why IPv6 deployment has been so swift.

IPv6 deployment has been as slow as it has been because the IAB has been doing the wrong job. One of the unforseen effects of the 1396 reforms is that the IAB seems to have lost its technical role. Who does the IAB talk to apart from itself?

The way I would use the IAB is to liase with organizations such as the Anti-phishing working group, MAAWG, organizations that are addressing critical pain points that we face in the Internet. If you want to deploy IPv6 you have to have a marketting strategy. A deployment strategy must be more than simply advice to network administrators. The decision to migrate to IPv6 is not made at their pay grade.

> The IETF isn't in charge of hardly anything. The vendors, 
> ISP's and even the users (q.v. IPv6) all have a lot more 
> influence - not to mention governments, and the legal systems 
> of the various countries (e.g. look at wiretapping in the US, 
> and the Great Firewall of China).

You don't need to be in charge of something to provide leadership. The 1396 infrastructure worked for Vint Cerf, the peoblem is that you have to be Vint Cerf (or possibly Tim Berners-Lee) for that infrastructure to work for you. 

>     > The current IETF management procedures may meet the 
> needs of some but
>     > they do not meet the needs of those people who have a 
> different scope
>     > and a different vision of what the Internet should be, 
> a vision and a
>     > scope that match what the Internet is today and will be 
> in the future.
> 
> The rest of us apologize for being stupider, and of more 
> limited vision, than you.

Putting words into other people's mouths is a despicable debating trick. So I will merely point out that in the IETF we are only speak for ourselves.

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

---

From: Stewart Bryant <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 05 Sep 2006 18:50:12 +0100

>The NOMCON is by design accountable to nobody. Members cannot influence their selection in any (legitimate) way. Once appointed a NOMCON member cannot expect to be reappointed. 
However the Nomcom consists of a cross-section of the community
all of whom see the same input from the community as to the suitability
the candidates for the jobs.

The members of the Nomcom keep each other honest because for
every member of the Nomcom that has a particular partisanship
there are 9 others with a different agenda, at least 8 of whom
work for a different organization. Provided the selection pool is
sufficiently large the probability of a skewed Nomcom is small
and the process works fairly.

- Stewart

---

From: "todd glassey" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 5 Sep 2006 10:57:24 -0700

No Stewart it doesn't. The leadership in the IETF needs to be washed clean
and made pure again. That will only happen when all the smoke and mirrors'
are stripped clean and the will of the proletariat actually considered
instead of what is done today.

NOMCOM and a non-electoral model are what need to go away - The IETF needs
to be a place where EVERY  VOICE is heard and counted.

Todd Glassey.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Stewart Bryant" <[email-masked]>
To: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" <[email-masked]>
Cc: "Noel Chiappa" <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>
Sent: Tuesday, September 05, 2006 10:50 AM
Subject: Re: NOMCOM term limits... Re: Now there seems to be lackof
communicaiton here...

>
> >The NOMCON is by design accountable to nobody. Members cannot influence
their selection in any (legitimate) way. Once appointed a NOMCON member
cannot expect to be reappointed.

---

From: "Fleischman, Eric" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 5 Sep 2006 11:14:21 -0700

The view from my knot hole is that back in the 1990s, the IETF was a
meritocracy in which the power of proven technical insight plus running
code determined our leadership. Our community has been steadily evolving
as times and membership changed.

Your posting reminds me from statements from the French Revolution
roughly 200 years ago. The part of your posting that confuses me is the
"every voice heard and counted"? Certainly you don't mean "every voice"
since most people know nothing about Internet technologies. So what do
you mean?

I also fail to descern why you don't think that the curent approach
works. Specifically, I'd prefer NOMCOM to be populated by people who
actively participate in the IETF and who have a pulse on our community
(i.e., I still buy into the concept of 'meritocracy' -- it has served us
well). Do you really object to this? Why?

From: todd glassey [mailto:[email-masked]]

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 05 Sep 2006 11:34:43 -0700

> and the process works fairly.

All true.  However a question worth asking is about the potential 
influence of the liaisons. Sometimes, they are remarkably active 
participants in the Nomcom discussions, to the point of leading 
discussion.  Should that be their role?

If a Nomcom has voting members with relatively less direct experience in 
the management of IETF work -- as chairs or authors -- then the liaisons 
must be relied on particularly heavily.

What the liaisons all have in common is that they are part of the 
existing IETF management structure. The potential for this producing a 
process that tends to cater to the established structure, rather than 
explore alternatives, seems rather straightforward, no matter how 
diligent everyone is.  That is, this seems an inherent bias.

In addition, the Nomcom research process is weighted towards obtaining 
opinions from within the existing management structure.  An enormous 
amount of energy is devoted to interviewing all IAB and IESG mbmers, as 
well as working group chairs.  All of this is entirely reasonable, of 
course, except to the extent that it contains an inherent bias. Although 
not absolute, the sitting members of IETF management can effectively 
issue a veto on a candidate.

A straightforward means of obtaining more diverse input is to make 
candiates' names public.  This permits the rest of the community to 
decide whether to comment, rather than limiting Nomcom input to those 
who the Nomcom chooses to solicit. (No, this is not a new idea.)

A possible means of ensuring that Nomcom voting members always have a 
strong base of IETF operational knowledge is to require that some 
percentage of its membership have more experience than mere attendance. 
  (Note that the meeting attendance requirement does not mean that the 
person has ever attended a single working group meeting, nevermind never 
done any serious IETF work.)

d/

-- 

   Dave Crocker
   Brandenburg InternetWorking
   bbiw.net

---

From: "todd glassey" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 5 Sep 2006 11:37:49 -0700

No Eric I don't object to the NOMCOM members being active in the IETF but
what does that mean? That they have created IP that the IETF is the Owner
of? And while, or after their document's are published? it makes all the
difference.

FWIW - Their being Management at the same time that they were
subject-participants would be a clear conflict of interest. Being a
publishing author of process-technology document and a WG Chair, AD or other
NOMCOM role a Conflict based on any number of accountability issues.
Especially if you were a WG Chair of the WG you were publishing in...

Here is the deal - the IETF is a very important thing IMHO and needs to be
preserved, but it also needs to be made impervious to and all personalities
including mine and that means that it becomes totally fair and open - i.e.
willing to have its processes challenged in the light of providing a fair
and equitable platform of standards development.

The core issue is not my objections to the lack of any positive government
but rather the failing of the IESG and IETF Management to foster and promote
more than one standard a year. This is a joke considering the billions of
dollars that are spent on improving the IETF's IP portfolio at the expense
of the Tax Payer and more importantly its a testament to the failure of the
IESG as it sits today.

The IETF and IESG need to produce at minimum 1/2 dozen or more standards per
year IMHO otherwise they are violating their charter's and are exercising
personal judgment rather than professional assessment's ...

In fact  no standards process should be allowed which don't have full
project vetting and milestone definition plans. And when those milestones
are completed the project advances automatically to the next stage. That
being Proposed or Draft Standard. As long as the Interoperability Milestones
and Implementation Port count's are met then this Standards Process is not
something that the IESG should have a say in at all. They ARE NOT THE
KEEPERS OF THE INTERNET.

If anyone is - the members of the IETF and ISOC are. But the IESG sure
isn't.

Todd Glassey

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Fleischman, Eric" <[email-masked]>
To: "todd glassey" <[email-masked]>; "Stewart Bryant"
<[email-masked]>; "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" <[email-masked]>
Cc: "Noel Chiappa" <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>
Sent: Tuesday, September 05, 2006 11:14 AM
Subject: RE: NOMCOM term limits... Re: Now there seems to be lack of
communication here...

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 5 Sep 2006 14:58:42 -0400

> If you want accountability you have elections. You introduce a nominating committee or an electoral college precisely to weaken accountability and maintain power in the 'right' hands.

Not when the nominating committee is randomly chosen.

It's true that NOMCOM isn't accountable to anybody, in the sense that
it can be punished for wrongdoing.  But it is responsible to the
community.  Accountability and responsibility are different things. 

> The conclusion is clearly based on a false premise. The criteria for qualifying for NOMCON membership are now well established and the NOMCON qualification criteria are clearly a sufficient basis f…

Only if you buy into another false premise - which is that democratic
voting produces responsible leadership.

> On the contrary, the current situation provides me with a rather extensive ability to influence the results should I choose to. The NOMCON mechanism is considerably more open to organization by som…

Heaven forbid that the people who choose I* actually get to know the
candidates and get input from people with experience dealing with them
directly.

> Consider the following situation, imagine that there is a vacancy for a security area director, consider further that I wish for nefarious reasons to secure the nomination of a particular candidate…

You seem to believe that there's something inherently wrong with that.
If this brings the NOMCOM's attention to a good candidate, what's the
problem?  And if it brings NOMCOM's attention to a poor candidate, how
does it keep them from finding that out?

> If you were a member of the NOMCON trying to fill a hard to fill post such as Security or Routing and you had a series of people prominent in the area come to you recommending a particular candidat…

No, the chances are that I would take a serious look at the candidate.
that's an important distinction.

> The point here is that none of this is 'wrong' or 'outside the rules'. 

Nor is there anything obviously wrong with it.

> IPv6 deployment has been as slow as it has been because the IAB has been doing the wrong job. 

IPv6 deployment has been "slow" for lots of reasons, not the least of
which is that there's generally been a naive view of the path that IPv6
deployment would take, leading to unrealistic expectations about
timeframes and how to measure progress.

(though I certainly believe that more architectural input is needed
into IETF processes, and more attention needs to be paid to marketing.
hard to do without a budget, though.)

Keith

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 5 Sep 2006 15:00:53 -0400

> to be a place where EVERY  VOICE is heard and counted.

including, presumably, the voices of the incompetent.

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 5 Sep 2006 15:10:50 -0400

> diligent everyone is.  That is, this seems an inherent bias.

Indeed, but is it an inherently bad bias?  Surely continuity is worth
something, at least in some situations? The NOMCOM is free to ignore
input from the liasons if it decides that there is more benefit to the
community from disrupting the management structure than from catering
to it.

> who the Nomcom chooses to solicit. (No, this is not a new idea.)

On balance, I think it would be preferable to make candidates' names
public as long as their consent is obtained before doing so.   Better
yet might be to expect all willing candidates to publicly announce
their willingness to serve if chosen.  That would have several positive
effects - it would make the community aware of the candidate slate, it
would invite people to provide input to NOMCOM about those candidates,
it would make the community aware of areas in which viable candidates
were in short supply.  Yes it could be embarassing to those not chosen,
but if you're going to be on IESG you'll have to deal with far worse
than that.   (being on IAB doesn't seem quite so bad, but I've never
actually done it.)

Keith

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 05 Sep 2006 15:16:52 -0400

--On Tuesday, September 05, 2006 3:10 PM -0400 Keith Moore 
<[email-masked]> wrote:

> On balance, I think it would be preferable to make candidates'
> names public as long as their consent is obtained before doing
> so.   Better yet might be to expect all willing candidates to
> publicly announce their willingness to serve if chosen.  That
> would have several positive effects - it would make the
> community aware of the candidate slate, it would invite people
> to provide input to NOMCOM about those candidates, it would
> make the community aware of areas in which viable candidates
> were in short supply.  Yes it could be embarassing to those
> not chosen, but if you're going to be on IESG you'll have to
> deal with far worse than that.   (being on IAB doesn't seem
> quite so bad, but I've never actually done it.)

One thing to watch out for in these proposals is that the Nomcom 
now has the ability to brainstorm, conclude that person X would 
be a better candidate for a particular position than any of the 
already-suggested candidates, and then go out an start twisting 
X's arm.  The idea is particularly important if the Nomcom has 
an idea that involves reaching outside the usual cluster of 
suspects or even outside the collection of usual and recent IETF 
participants.  In theory, the Nomcom can reach that conclusion 
and start the process at a fairly late stage, e.g., after the 
close of the formal call for nominations/ recommendations.

I gather that this mechanism has not been used often recently, 
but am not convinced that is adequate reason for discarding it.

While it is probably not impossible to reconcile it with public 
lists of candidates, reconciling the two might require some 
effort.  How about a specific proposal, folks?  You and Dave 
clearly know how to do that, even if some others who make a lot 
of postings to this list don't seem to.

    john

---

From: "todd glassey" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 5 Sep 2006 12:30:40 -0700

Yes Keith even the incompetent get to speak here. And that includes you too.

Todd Glassey

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Keith Moore" <[email-masked]>
To: "todd glassey" <[email-masked]>
Cc: <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>;
<[email-masked]>
Sent: Tuesday, September 05, 2006 12:00 PM
Subject: Re: NOMCOM term limits... Re: Now there seems to be lackof
communicaiton here...

---

From: Jari Arkko <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 05 Sep 2006 22:37:33 +0300

Phillip,

>If you were a member of the NOMCON trying to fill a hard to fill post such as Security or Routing and you had a series of people prominent in the area come to you recommending a particular candidate…
I'm not saying there is nothing in the Nomcom process that couldn't
be improved, but in the above you are not giving enough credit for
the folks in Nomcom. Remember that they are working hard to
get a lot of input. (According to the slides from IETF-65 plenary,
the last Nomcom sent out 1850 requests for feedback.) I'm sure
they will also evaluate the input based on context, e.g.,
recommendations by colleagues from the same company vs.
others, very different recommendations from different people,
people who have worked with the candidate in the IETF vs.
others, etc.

--Jari

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 5 Sep 2006 15:46:03 -0400

> Yes Keith even the incompetent get to speak here. And that includes you too.

You, sir, are not competent to judge my level of competence.

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 05 Sep 2006 12:44:37 -0700

>> names public as long as their consent is obtained before doing

I do not understand how it can be reasonable to have some candidates' 
names disclosed and others' not.  That makes things remarkably complex.

An IETF position entails massively public behavior.  If a candidate 
cannot tolerate public scrutiny during the selection process, what does 
that say about their personal fragility and likely methods when in office?

(On the matter of fragility, I am merely acknowledging that having 
candidates' names be public will likely result in there being 
unprofessional behavior by some IETF participants, in making public 
comment, rather than comment restricted to the Nomcom, and probably 
making comments about personality rather than performance.)

> One thing to watch out for in these proposals is that the Nomcom now has 
> the ability to brainstorm, conclude that person X would be a better 
> candidate for a particular position than any of the already-suggested 
> candidates, and then go out an start twisting X's arm.  The idea is 

I was not offering any comment -- nevermind any suggestion for change -- 
on the method(s) for obtaining candidates.  Rather, once a candidate is 
formally under Nomcom consideration, then their name would be made public,

> While it is probably not impossible to reconcile it with public lists of 
> candidates, reconciling the two might require some effort.  

I do not understand what "reconciling" is needed.  Whenever a candidate 
becomes a formal candidate, their name gets published.

OK.  For efficiency, the Nomcom might do some aggregations.  For 
example, it might choose to wait for completion of an initial slate of 
candidates, before publishing any of their names.  I am not sure we need 
to dictate this.

>How about a 
> specific proposal, folks?  You and Dave clearly know how to do that, 
> even if some others who make a lot of postings to this list don't seem to.

1. I'm not sure what additional language is needed, above what I've 
written here.

2. I'm not sure how a 'formal' proposal gets submitted, nor am I hopeful 
it will be productive, given the disposition of most/all process 
proposals over the last 5 years.

d/
-- 

   Dave Crocker

in; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: Adjusting the Nomcom process
Reply-To: [email-masked]

>> names public as long as their consent is obtained before doing

I do not understand how it can be reasonable to have some candidates' 
names disclosed and others' not.  That makes things remarkably complex.

An IETF position entails massively public behavior.  If a candidate 
cannot tolerate public scrutiny during the selection process, what does 
that say about their personal fragility and likely methods when in office?

(On the matter of fragility, I am merely acknowledging that having 
candidates' names be public will likely result in there being 
unprofessional behavior by some IETF participants, in making public 
comment, rather than comment restricted to the Nomcom, and probably 
making comments about personality rather than performance.)

> One thing to watch out for in these proposals is that the Nomcom now has 
> the ability to brainstorm, conclude that person X would be a better 
> candidate for a particular position than any of the already-suggested 
> candidates, and then go out an start twisting X's arm.  The idea is 

I was not offering any comment -- nevermind any suggestion for change -- 
on the method(s) for obtaining candidates.  Rather, once a candidate is 
formally under Nomcom consideration, then their name would be made public,

> While it is probably not impossible to reconcile it with public lists of 
> candidates, reconciling the two might require some effort.  

I do not understand what "reconciling" is needed.  Whenever a candidate 
becomes a formal candidate, their name gets published.

OK.  For efficiency, the Nomcom might do some aggregations.  For 
example, it might choose to wait for completion of an initial slate of 
candidates, before publishing any of their names.  I am not sure we need 
to dictate this.

>How about a 
> specific proposal, folks?  You and Dave clearly know how to do that, 
> even if some others who make a lot of postings to this list don't seem to.

1. I'm not sure what additional language is needed, above what I've 
written here.

2. I'm not sure how a 'formal' proposal gets submitted, nor am I hopeful 
it will be productive, given the disposition of most/all process 
proposals over the last 5 years.

d/
-- 

   Dave Crocker

---

From: Lakshminath Dondeti <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 05 Sep 2006 13:17:15 -0700

>community from disrupting the management structure than from catering

Liaisons' role in the nomcom has been interesting from my first hand 
observation.  Some of them provide input when asked, occasionally 
provide "personal" advice labeling it as such, and communicate 
"official" input from the folks who appointed them.  That is the 
level of involvement I appreciate.  However, there are some folks who 
do more than that.  Perhaps it is done with good intentions and 
sometimes that level of input is in fact appreciated by nomcom 
members who are looking for more input than they are getting (yes, 
that is sometimes the case.  It is hard to select when you are 
unfamiliar with the area and the deadlines are looming to do any 
amount of research).  However, my guess would be that in the long run 
activist liaisons undermine the nomcom process.  There is language in 
the current RFCs, but it can use some tightening.  If others feel 
that way, let's work on a draft offline.

The other suggestion/concern raised recently was about the number of 
folks with one affiliation.  Perhaps, and especially if liaisons are 
expected to be *even* active (not necessarily activist) in their 
roles on nomcom, we should consider non-voting members in counting 
the number of folks with one affiliation.

thanks,
Lakshminath

---

From: Jari Arkko <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 05 Sep 2006 23:39:28 +0300

Dave,

I'm generally happy with the Nomcom process (and I
believe its a better alternative than direct voting).

However, I do agree with you that making the
candidate list public would be useful.

The first reason why I think so relates to fairness.
People tell their colleagues and friends that their
name is on the list. The Nomcom itself sends out
feedback requests to a large number of people,
(particularly after recent advances in tool support).
The set of people who know is not small. Why
not tell the remaining people as well?

The second reason relates to practical
ability for people to provide feedback. Obviously,
if you do not know what the list of candidates
is you will have harder time sending feedback.

Note that publishing the list has
been discussed before and some arguments
have been raised against it. One of those
arguments was that its harder to get
candidates if the process is too public.
Personally, I don't think it is a real
problem.

--Jari

---

From: Lakshminath Dondeti <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 05 Sep 2006 14:13:46 -0700

At 12:37 PM 9/5/2006, Jari Arkko wrote:
>Phillip,
>
> >Consider the following situation, imagine that there is a vacancy 
> for a security area director, consider further that I wish for 
> nefarious reasons to secure the nomination of a particular 
> candidate which left to its own devices the NOMCON would be 
> unlikely to choose. The first step in such a campaign would be to 
> draw up a matrix of the members of the NOMCON, the people who they 
> are most likely to respond to etc. It is unlikely that I need more 
> than four people prominent in the Security world to make a 
> concerted recommendation in favor of my candidate. I could do this 
> without speaking to any member of the NOMCON myself.
> >
> >If you were a member of the NOMCON trying to fill a hard to fill 
> post such as Security or Routing and you had a series of people 
> prominent in the area come to you recommending a particular 
> candidate the chances are that you would follow the recommendation.
> >
> >

What might also be interesting to note was that the return rate was 
very low.  I don't recall the exact numbers, but after ruling out 
variants of "I don't know the person" and single-word or single-line 
responses, there were cases where I was left with only a handful of 
opinions to go by.  In some cases, a single negative opinion weighed 
heavily in the discussions.

Perhaps if the feedback portal is open to all, future nomcoms might 
get more useful feedback?

Lakshminath

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 05 Sep 2006 18:00:36 -0400

--On Tuesday, September 05, 2006 12:44 PM -0700 Dave Crocker 
<[email-masked]> wrote:

>...
>> One thing to watch out for in these proposals is that the
>> Nomcom now has  the ability to brainstorm, conclude that
>> person X would be a better  candidate for a particular
>> position than any of the already-suggested  candidates, and
>> then go out an start twisting X's arm.  The idea is
>
> I was not offering any comment -- nevermind any suggestion for
> change -- on the method(s) for obtaining candidates.  Rather,
> once a candidate is formally under Nomcom consideration, then
> their name would be made public,

>> While it is probably not impossible to reconcile it with
>> public lists of  candidates, reconciling the two might
>> require some effort.
>
> I do not understand what "reconciling" is needed.  Whenever a
> candidate becomes a formal candidate, their name gets
> published.
>
> OK.  For efficiency, the Nomcom might do some aggregations.
> For example, it might choose to wait for completion of an
> initial slate of candidates, before publishing any of their
> names.  I am not sure we need to dictate this.

But that is precisely why I think some formal proposal is 
needed.  The current discussion broke out because the procedures 
were believed to be insufficient to cover a particular, 
important, case.  Part of the community is second-guessing the 
decision that was made on the basis of Nomcom Chair discussion. 
An overlapping part is determined to change the rules so that 
issues like this are no longer subject to such discretion.

Now suppose the Nomcom waits until some deadline for suggestions 
of names, then announces the names of candidates, then looks at 
that list, concludes that it isn't happy with any of them, 
identifies another candidate, gets her to agree, and announces 
that name.  This immediately tells the community that the Nomcom 
didn't like the initial list and who the preferred candidate is. 
We could debate how harmful that would be, but it does not seem 
to me to be ideal.  And it is sufficiently debatable that I 
doubt than any sensible Nomcom chair would want to do it purely 
on the chair's discretion: some guidance would be very much in 
order, even if that guidance was not a firm set of rules.

>> How about a
>> specific proposal, folks?  You and Dave clearly know how to
>> do that,  even if some others who make a lot of postings to
>> this list don't seem to.
>
> 1. I'm not sure what additional language is needed, above what
> I've written here.

See above.

> 2. I'm not sure how a 'formal' proposal gets submitted, nor am
> I hopeful it will be productive, given the disposition of
> most/all process proposals over the last 5 years.

That is, indeed, an issue.  And I agree that it needs to be 
addressed in a serious way before it is productive for anyone to 
submit a substantive process change proposal about anything 
(fine-tuning is an occasional exception).

    john

---

From: Theodore Tso <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 5 Sep 2006 17:31:24 -0400

> Yes Keith even the incompetent get to speak here. And that includes you too.

Yes, the incompetent do get to speak here.  That has been amply
demonstrated on this and other threads, without naming anyone in
specific.  And, the incompetent, if they attend a sufficient number of
IETF meetings, are also capable of putting their names into the hat
and have a random chance of being selected to serve on the Nomcom,
like everyone else.  There is the hope that by the time have served on
the requisite number of IETF meetings and worked on various IETF
projects, that they will have learned enough about the community which
they are proposing to serve that they won't, perhaps, be as
incompetent as when they first started.

No, it is not a mob rule by the uneducated.  Some would say this is a
good thing.  The uneducated mob can and does rule by exerting pressure
on the vendors, of course.  So they do have a role to play in this
whole process, even if they don't get to vote on the IETF management
structure. 

						- Ted

---

From: Theodore Tso <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 5 Sep 2006 17:31:24 -0400

- Ted

---

From: "Richard Shockey" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 5 Sep 2006 20:00:56 -0400

Well said.. Incompetence and stupidity have never been an impediment to a
genuine democratic process. You only need look at the US Congress, UK
Parliament, German Bundestag, and Japanese Diet etal for evidence of that.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Theodore Tso [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Tuesday, September 05, 2006 5:31 PM
> To: todd glassey
> Cc: [email-masked]; Keith Moore; [email-masked];
> [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: NOMCOM term limits... Re: Now there seems to be
> lackofcommunicaiton here...
>

---

From: Sam Hartman <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 05 Sep 2006 23:58:56 -0400

>>>>> "Jari" == Jari Arkko <[email-masked]> writes:

    Jari> Dave, I'm generally happy with the Nomcom process (and I
    Jari> believe its a better alternative than direct voting).

    Jari> However, I do agree with you that making the candidate list
    Jari> public would be useful.

Me too.

---

From: Stewart Bryant <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 06 Sep 2006 08:53:11 +0100

>    Jari> public would be useful.
I agree - making the candidate list public would allow the nomcom to get 
better
quality feedback.

As was said earlier in the thread, any I* job subjects the appointee to 
significant
scrutiny, so it could be argued that those unwilling to put their name 
forward
in public were unprepared for the consequences of appointment and therefore
not qualified.

- Stewart

---

From: Lars Eggert <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 6 Sep 2006 11:49:38 +0200

>     Jari> public would be useful.

I agree.

There might be ways to experiment with this idea during future NomCom  
cycles. For example, all candidates for a particular position can be  
asked whether they'd be OK with having their name publicly listed. If  
all candidates for a position agree, the list of candidates for this  
position becomes public. If one or more disagree, the whole list for  
a position remains private. (In the latter case, the names of the  
candidates who disagreed also needs to remain private.)

Hopefully, the candidate list for one or more positions would become  
public in this way, and the NomCom can decide whether they get higher- 
quality feedback on the candidates for these positions. If yes,  
that'd argue for making all candidate lists public in the future.

Lars
-- 
Lars Eggert                                     NEC Network Laboratories

---

From: Edward Lewis <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 6 Sep 2006 18:22:14 +0800

From my time on the nomcom I'll register this observation.

Keeping the names secret (or at least obfuscated) makes the process a 
popularity contest.  Not like a high school class president 
popularity contest, but, putting the nomcom into a passive-mode 
request for information posture usually only gets input on the 
popular candidates.

E.g., if Brad Pitt were under consideration for the Hollywood Area 
and he was up against a little known Joe Blow, the Nomcom might also 
seek information about Robert Redford and Paul Newman (and others) to 
throw everyone off the trail that Brad Pitt was up for nomination.

What the nomcom would receive is a lot of data on Paul Newman, Robert 
Redford (all useless as they were out of the running), and Brad Pitt. 
And we'd get a lot of "never heard of him" about Joe Blow.  So, we'd 
have data on one and not the other.  Not very useful.

So, not publishing the names seems to hinder the process.  At least 
in that one respect.

My understanding about the policy of not publishing names is that we 
don't want to hurt the feelings of folks passed over when the 
criteria is so poorly defined.  I'm rather surprised that an 
organization that prides itself on openness is too shy to name names 
when selecting folks for a volunteer position.

With poorly defined criteria, how can it be embarrassing to be passed over?

I don't think it makes much of a difference in the outcome of the 
nomcom if names are published or not.  (OTOH it is yet another 
perennial issue to blow bits on a mailing list about.)  How about we 
just try it once and see what happens - all that stuff about running 
code and other slogans we used to go by?

Let's stop chattering about bureaucratic processes and return to trying things.

-- 
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Edward Lewis                                                +1-571-434-5468
NeuStar

Secrets of Success #107: Why arrive at 7am for the good parking space?
Come in at 11am while the early birds drive out to lunch.

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 06 Sep 2006 13:27:25 +0200

Edward Lewis wrote:
...

> I don't think it makes much of a difference in the outcome of the nomcom 
> if names are published or not.  (OTOH it is yet another perennial issue 
> to blow bits on a mailing list about.)  How about we just try it once 
> and see what happens - all that stuff about running code and other 
> slogans we used to go by?
> 

I think that varying the NomCom rules without at the minimum an RFC 3933
experiment documented would be really contentious. And given the amount
of discussion needed for these topics, now would not be too soon to start
drafting an experiment for next year.

This isn't a call for bureaucracy, but for precision. As this year's glitch
shows, extreme precision is needed in the rules.

     Brian

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 06 Sep 2006 13:27:25 +0200

Edward Lewis wrote:
...

     Brian

---

From: Lars Eggert <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 6 Sep 2006 17:50:01 +0200

Hi,

On Sep 6, 2006, at 12:22, Edward Lewis wrote:
> and he was up against a little known Joe Blow, the Nomcom might  
> also seek information about Robert Redford and Paul Newman (and  
> others) to throw everyone off the trail that Brad Pitt was up for  
> nomination.

I personally found it a bit demotivating in the past to not know  
whether the effort spent on writing detailed inputs to NomCom was  
"wasted", because I was commenting on a dummy candidate that wasn't  
actually running.

Public candidate lists without dummies may motivate people to spend  
more effort on writing NomCom inputs, because all input would  
contribute to the final decision.

Lars

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 06 Sep 2006 08:59:52 -0700

> shows, extreme precision is needed in the rules.

Interesting.  What it showed me is that we cannot anticipate every 
contingency.

Hence what it showed me is that we need better statement of principles 
and less effort to try to specify every problem and solution that might 
ever occur.

d/
-- 

   Dave Crocker

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 06 Sep 2006 18:08:08 +0200

> and less effort to try to specify every problem and solution that might 

I don't think that is inconsistent with the need for precision. It's
ambiguity that leads to problems - for example, ambiguity about who
resolves problems during the formation of NomCom.

     Brian

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 06 Sep 2006 09:24:22 -0700

Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>> and less effort to try to specify every problem and solution that 
>> might ever occur.
> 

Brian,

I do not think that "ambiguity" is what caused the current problem.

Errors happen.  Having an error in assessing who is a nomcom candidate 
is actually a pretty simple -- ie, likely -- error.

So the issue is how the Nomcom chair deals with an error that is the 
interesting question.

(I will of course include here the usual disclaimer that none of my 
concerns are about the people involved.  This entire thread is about 
"principles". Principles have no ad hominem aspect.)

There seem to have been two principles at issue, this time:

      1.  The community needs to be able to review the list of 
candidates for nomcom, prior to selection of nomcom members.

      2.  The nomcom is independent of the IESG and the IAB.  Hence, 
consultation with either of them, for deciding how to resolve nomcom 
problems, creates an inherent conflict of interest.

In other words, being clear about openness and independence would 
probably have caused things to have been handled quite differently.

That's not "precision", Brian.

It's not a listing of lots of precise (unambiguous) detail.

It is being clear about the basic concepts of the nomcom process.

d/
-- 

   Dave Crocker

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
[email-masked] [email-masked] Wed Sep 06 12:34:26 2006
Date: Wed, 06 Sep 2006 09:24:22 -0700
From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Organization: Brandenburg InternetWorking
To: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: Adjusting the Nomcom process
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>> and less effort to try to specify every problem and solution that 
>> might ever occur.
> 

Brian,

I do not think that "ambiguity" is what caused the current problem.

Errors happen.  Having an error in assessing who is a nomcom candidate 
is actually a pretty simple -- ie, likely -- error.

So the issue is how the Nomcom chair deals with an error that is the 
interesting question.

(I will of course include here the usual disclaimer that none of my 
concerns are about the people involved.  This entire thread is about 
"principles". Principles have no ad hominem aspect.)

There seem to have been two principles at issue, this time:

      1.  The community needs to be able to review the list of 
candidates for nomcom, prior to selection of nomcom members.

      2.  The nomcom is independent of the IESG and the IAB.  Hence, 
consultation with either of them, for deciding how to resolve nomcom 
problems, creates an inherent conflict of interest.

In other words, being clear about openness and independence would 
probably have caused things to have been handled quite differently.

That's not "precision", Brian.

It's not a listing of lots of precise (unambiguous) detail.

It is being clear about the basic concepts of the nomcom process.

d/
-- 

   Dave Crocker

---

From: Ned Freed <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 06 Sep 2006 09:26:38 -0700 (PDT)

> Interesting.  What it showed me is that we cannot anticipate every

Dave, I'm sorry, but it didn't show that at all. The specific problem that
arose here WAS anticipated and analyzed and the correct thing to do in this case
WAS determined and documented. See RFC 3797 section 5.1 for specifics.

Rather, the issue is simply that the nomcom chair elected not to follow the
best practice guidelines we had established. As I have stated before, this was
a serious blunder, and the solution to this specific problem is to make it
impossible for the nomcom chair to make a similar mistake in the future.

Beyond that there is room for debate. But thus far nobody has offered up
anything remotely credible in support of the continued ability of the nomcom
chair to reset the process in the event of a unqualified name being found on
the list after it has been published.
 
> and less effort to try to specify every problem and solution that might

I have no problem with there being a better statement of principles, and as
Phillip was remarked, I agree that we've focused on confidentiality too much
and auditability too little. But this doesn't mean we don't need to drive
a stake through this specific problem (or rather, through an entire
constellation of problems that arise should the process be reset for no
good reason).

				Ned

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 06 Sep 2006 10:09:20 -0700

Ned,

Ned Freed wrote:
> Dave, I'm sorry, but it didn't show that at all. The specific problem
> that arose here WAS anticipated and analyzed and the correct thing to
> do in this case WAS determined and documented. See RFC 3797 section
> 5.1 for specifics.
> 
> Rather, the issue is simply that the nomcom chair elected not to
> follow the best practice guidelines we had established. 

Hmmmm.

I have not seen Brian or others holding this view, although I must say 
that my reading of 3797 matches yours. As to its use, I suppose one one 
might quibble that 3797 is merely Informational...

In fact, 3797 has not seemed to get that much focus, from my own sense 
of the ietf list discussion.  To the extent that there is universal 
belief that it covers the current problem, then I do no understand why 
we have been having so much debate.

In any event, what makes 3797 even more interesting is that not only did 
the nomcom chair not follow it, but those he consulted with seem not to 
have thought to follow it...

I do not see any way to characterize any of this as involving 
"ambiguity".  That's why I am taking exception to that characterization 
of the need.

Perhaps a deeper sense of principles would not have prevented such an 
error, but I am inclined to suspect that it might at least have produced 
a less problematic error.

>> Hence what it showed me is that we need better statement of
>> principles and less effort to try to specify every problem and
>> solution that might ever occur.
> 
> I have no problem with there being a better statement of principles,
> and as Phillip was remarked, I agree that we've focused on
> confidentiality too much and auditability too little. But this
> doesn't mean we don't need to drive a stake through this specific
> problem (or rather, through an entire constellation of problems that
> arise should the process be reset for no good reason).

good point.

d/

-- 

   Dave Crocker

---

From: Eliot Lear <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 06 Sep 2006 19:54:41 +0200

Ned,
> that

I don't know how many ways I can say this, but 5.1 is irrelevant to the
problem I was concerned about, which is having the pool come out at the
same time as the results.  That allows for mischief in many ways (not
that I'm accusing anyone of that).  Under the circumstances I *still*
believe that the chair did the correct thing, and that his doing so has
ensured the integrity of the process.

Eliot

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 06 Sep 2006 11:06:09 -0700

Eliot Lear wrote:
> same time as the results.  

right.  and that brings things back to the principles I cited.

d/
-- 

   Dave Crocker

---

From: Ned Freed <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 06 Sep 2006 13:10:08 -0700 (PDT)

> ensured the integrity of the process.

First of all, as others have suggested, the problem with the proximity of the
list and result publication can be addressed trivially by having the
secretariat provide the list they received for vetting purposes as well as the
result they handed back. Maybe I missed a response from you on this, but AFAIK
you have yet to explain why this simple action wouldn't deal with your
concerns, both in the present situation and should a similar situation ever
arise in the future. (in fact I think you said that this would resolve the
issue for you, this time around at least.) In any case, I felt this solution to
your issue was so simple and obvious that there was no need to comment on it
further.

Second, I have yet to hear an explanation from you as to how the community can
be confident that the process wasn't gamed in the fashion I have previously
described. AFAIK you have failed to rebut this argument, and until you do I
have to say I regard something that's I see no way to check as many times more
serious than something that can be checked quite easily.

In short, I think you concerns are 180% out of sync with reality here.

				Ned

---

From: Eliot Lear <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 07 Sep 2006 07:41:48 +0200

Ned Freed wrote:
> result they handed back.
What we had here was a foul-up between the secretariat and the chair,
largely based on timing and technical problems.  There is no need for
the secretariat to post its input list (although I have no objections to
that).  And as I wrote, in *this* case, which is what I am talking
about, given the problem, the chair did the right thing.  The rule which
states that the chair will wait at least a week, is *almost*
sufficient.  If the secretariat posts the list, it should also post the
date the algorithm should be run, and it should be responsible for
seeing that the message is properly distributed - which is really what
happened here.  And even so, *other* problems can arise, and so I agree
with Dave that attempting to address every contingency is going to yield
to the qualifications for chair being an Internet lawyer, and nobody
should want that.  Save the lawyers for the real elections :-(

As to whether the chair gamed the system in the way you described, it's
easy enough to determine: ask the secretariat if a message got stuck in
the queue.  If it did, then he didn't.  If it didn't then perhaps he
did.  Of course who is to say the secretariat didn't collude?  Well, at
some point we have to draw a line and simply believe they didn't. 
Besides having the list visibly posted in advance is sufficient to
tackle this particular case.

Eliot

---

From: "Eastlake III Donald-LDE008" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 7 Sep 2006 11:48:09 -0400

There were, as far as I can see, exactly two "right" things the nomcom
chair could have done:

(1) Amend the randomness input specification by moving it out a few
days. As long as this is done in advance of the old date which is being
changed, so the decision to move out the date can not be based on the
results using the old date, this is completely safe. It would probably
have been the best thing to do.

(2) Publish the unvetted list (or only partially vetted list) before the
randomness input date even while there was still eligibility disputes
over who was qualified. As long as everyone who is qualified or about
whom there is still an unsettle dispute is included, this is safe as
extra ineligible names in the list don't cause a problem. They are just
skipped and the algorithm run further if they come up in selection.

The evidence of past experience (12 years worth) is that disputes about
eligibility based on IETF meeting attendance can be settled with the
Secretariat within one week. The announced schedule gave a deadline for
volunteering and implied that the vetted list would be published
immediately after that deadline giving the Secretariat approximately
zero time to vet the list and settle disputes.

I think more transparency in the nomcom selection is good so, if the
process involves a stage of removing ineligibles from the list, to
produce a cleaner list, then the raw list should be posted and about a
week later the vetted list (and probably a week after that should be the
time of the last random input so the algorithm can be run). As above, it
is no problem if an ineligible person slips through on the "vetted" list
as long as this is detected before the actual selected nomcom voting
membership is announced.

Donald

-----Original Message-----
From: Eliot Lear [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Thursday, September 07, 2006 1:42 AM
To: Ned Freed
Cc: IETF Discussion
Subject: Re: Adjusting the Nomcom process

Ned Freed wrote:
>> Ned,
>>     
>>> Dave, I'm sorry, but it didn't show that at all. The specific 
>>> problem that arose here WAS anticipated and analyzed and the correct

>>> thing to do in this case WAS determined and documented. See RFC 3797

>>> section 5.1 for specifics.
>>>       
>
>   
>> I don't know how many ways I can say this, but 5.1 is irrelevant to 
>> the problem I was concerned about, which is having the pool come out 
>> at the same time as the results.  That allows for mischief in many 
>> ways (not that I'm accusing anyone of that).  Under the circumstances

>> I *still* believe that the chair did the correct thing, and that his 
>> doing so has ensured the integrity of the process.
>>     
>
> First of all, as others have suggested, the problem with the proximity

> of the list and result publication can be addressed trivially by 
> having the secretariat provide the list they received for vetting 
> purposes as well as the result they handed back.

What we had here was a foul-up between the secretariat and the chair,
largely based on timing and technical problems.  There is no need for
the secretariat to post its input list (although I have no objections to
that).  And as I wrote, in *this* case, which is what I am talking
about, given the problem, the chair did the right thing.  The rule which
states that the chair will wait at least a week, is *almost* sufficient.
If the secretariat posts the list, it should also post the date the
algorithm should be run, and it should be responsible for seeing that
the message is properly distributed - which is really what happened
here.  And even so, *other* problems can arise, and so I agree with Dave
that attempting to address every contingency is going to yield to the
qualifications for chair being an Internet lawyer, and nobody should
want that.  Save the lawyers for the real elections :-(

Eliot

---

From: "todd glassey" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 7 Sep 2006 09:10:41 -0700

Ned Eliot - why fix the process??? - lets just turn the IETF into a
democracy and every member gets a vote.and that way the process isn't
needed.

ISOC members should probably also get to vote eh?

Todd
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Ned Freed" <[email-masked]>
To: "Eliot Lear" <[email-masked]>
Cc: "Ned Freed" <[email-masked]>; "IETF Discussion" <[email-masked]>
Sent: Wednesday, September 06, 2006 1:10 PM
Subject: Re: Adjusting the Nomcom process

> list anling list
[email-masked]

---

From: "todd glassey" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 7 Sep 2006 09:10:41 -0700

Todd
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Ned Freed" <[email-masked]>
To: "Eliot Lear" <[email-masked]>
Cc: "Ned Freed" <[email-masked]>; "IETF Discussion" <[email-masked]>
Sent: Wednesday, September 06, 2006 1:10 PM
Subject: Re: Adjusting the Nomcom process

> described.

By building formal accountability into the Role Responsibility and by
auditing the actions of the role therein.

> AFAIK you have failed to rebut this argument, and until you do I

Ths issue is not oversight in real-time but rather several years later and a
Standards Entity's "Adminitsrative Processes"  in which the words "Fair and
Open" are so important that the Entity absorbs some overhead to prove its
integrity in an ongoing manner. - OK that's the 200KM view

What it really means is that processes in which any reviewable or
challengable decisions are made are made transparent and with a trail of
evidence from. This is about the design of the whole NOMCOM process.

My take personally is that the best solution is that the IETF Membership is
recognized formally and allowed to vote - on any and all positions from AD
up. Then none of this hocus pocus is necessary. I think we would find the
IETF a very heavly voted democracy and what I mean by that is that the voter
turnout in IETF elections would be high.

Todd

d result publication can be addressed trivially by having the
> described.

By building formal accountability into the Role Responsibility and by
auditing the actions of the role therein.

> AFAIK you have failed to rebut this argument, and until you do I

Ths issue is not oversight in real-time but rather several years later and a
Standards Entity's "Adminitsrative Processes"  in which the words "Fair and
Open" are so important that the Entity absorbs some overhead to prove its
integrity in an ongoing manner. - OK that's the 200KM view

What it really means is that processes in which any reviewable or
challengable decisions are made are made transparent and with a trail of
evidence from. This is about the design of the whole NOMCOM process.

My take personally is that the best solution is that the IETF Membership is
recognized formally and allowed to vote - on any and all positions from AD
up. Then none of this hocus pocus is necessary. I think we would find the
IETF a very heavly voted democracy and what I mean by that is that the voter
turnout in IETF elections would be high.

Todd

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 08 Sep 2006 14:24:04 +0200

Dave,

> problems, creates an inherent conflict of interest.

If that had happened, it would have been a CoI. As Leslie and I
already made clear, it didn't.

    Brian

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 08 Sep 2006 08:01:09 -0700

Dave Crocker wrote:
>> consultation with either of them, for deciding how to resolve
>> nomcom problems, creates an inherent conflict of interest.
> 

I am sorry, Brian, but we have fundamentally different understandings of 
the concept of "to consult"(*):

Leslie Daigle wrote:
 > Brian & I were on the cc list of one complaint; we certainly
 > agreed the situation needed addressing.

and

Brian E Carpenter wrote:
 > Full disclosure: My personal opinion, which I *did* give to Lynn and
 > Andrew when I became aware of this glitch, is that a reset is the only
 > way to be certain that the selection process is unbiased.

These indicate that you were consulted and you responded.

I think that you are confusing the meaning of "to consult" with "to 
decide".

The idea that your providing input to the process of resolving the error 
had no potential conflict does not match my understanding of concerns 
about CoI.

d/

(*)  American Heritage Dictionary: "1.a.  To seek advice or information".
-- 

   Dave Crocker

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 08 Sep 2006 17:28:28 +0200

> I think that you are confusing the meaning of "to consult" with "to 

No, Dave, you are confusing "IESG" and "IETF Chair", and "IAB" and
"IAB Chair." Leslie and I were copied; the IESG and IAB were not.

     Brian

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 08 Sep 2006 08:53:19 -0700

Brian,

The phrase "distinction without a difference" comes to mind.

Really, Brian, please try to focus on the underlying concern being 
expressed, rather than respond with fine points that both miss the 
concern and, at best, serve only as a technicality for dismissing the 
concern.

First you focused on "ambiguity", when that seems pretty clearly not to 
be the issue -- although I note that you have not responded to that 
observation.

Now you focus on the difference between the two people who head the IAB 
and IESG, versus the entirety of those bodies, as if the two Chairs are 
devoid of potential for CoI.

Neither of those provide a substantive response to the concern about 
Nomcom independence.

d/

-- 

   Dave Crocker

---

From: "todd glassey" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 10 Sep 2006 09:44:12 -0700

BRIAN - you have totally missed the point - No offense meant, but
your personal word nor any other IETF/IESG staff member  is what is not to
be relied on - whether you are telling the truth or not is irrelevant - the
process has a hole in it large enough to drive a Mack truck through.

The IETF's standards processes need to be redesigned so that they do not
allow for Conflicts of Interest to occur. Period.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Brian E Carpenter" <[email-masked]>

SNIP-

> Dave,
>
> >      2.  The NOMCOM is independent of the IESG and the IAB.  Hence,
> > consultation with either of them, for deciding how to resolve NOMCOM

The problem Brian is that this is an instance when we have to believe you
and many of us don't. So it doesn't matter whether what you are saying is
true
or not. The possibility that "it" happened and that this had effect on the
NOMCOM process is the issue, and since the process is designed the way it
is - this is a problem that needs reworking.

The issue is that you are making a statement of fact with no evidence or
recourse for us if you are lying. And so  the only thing we have to rely on
is your
word. The problem is that after the shenanigans that many researchers and
academics have played in creating fraudulent standards - hey look at North
Korea's Cloned
Animal scandal... we have a crises of faith - and its faith in the IETF and
IESG to not be looking out after the member's interests..

The point is simple - Standards Processes need to be mechanically better
than the word of the person/staff who is inside of the standard process' or
administering processes. That means that potential COI's MUST NOT be
designed into the processes if creating and verifying standards efforts.

It also means that no one (IETF Management) gets to make any arbitrary
decisions as to where and when things happen or if they happen in any
approved initiative.

In fact - Anywhere where there is a single thread of control in the
Standards process, those threads MUST happen entirely in the open to be
transparent and fair for all.. and usually the better method is to have no
single threaded control processes anywhere in the Standards Process.

Todd Glassey

---

From: "Randy Presuhn" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 10 Sep 2006 17:17:29 -0700

Hi -

> From: "todd glassey" <[email-masked]>
> To: "Brian E Carpenter" <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>
> Sent: Sunday, September 10, 2006 9:44 AM
> Subject: Crisis of Faith - was Re: Adjusting the Nomcom process
...
...

When I see an internet draft spelling out such a process, I will read
it with great interest.  Until someone does the work of figuring out
how to create such a process, however, I am quite happy to trust
(or not) the various players, in accordance with their behaviour and
my own experience.  As others have said, making it impossible to
misbehave does not make people good.

Randy

---

From: Theodore Tso <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 10 Sep 2006 22:06:44 -0400

> process has a hole in it large enough to drive a Mack truck through.

Todd, it's clear you don't have any faith in anyone on the IESG (they
aren't "staff", by the way, they are volunteers), but at the same
time, the vast majority of those who have spoken on this thread have
clearly expressed that they believe that all concerned were acting in
good faith, and that no harm was done.  

You may not believe that, but as a suggestion, your constant and
strident attacks quite frankly weaken your own credibility.  So if you
do have a particular goal of changing how the IETF works, being a bit
more thoughtful about suggesting changes will tend to probably serve
your goals better than your current style of attacking people like
Brian and other IESG members.

Regards,

					- Ted

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2006 10:51:39 +0200

Dave Crocker wrote:
...

> be the issue -- although I note that you have not responded to that 

IMHO RFC3777, like most RFCs, contains ambiguity, imprecision
and gaps. That's why we revise RFCs from time to time, when running
code reveals these problems.

> devoid of potential for CoI.

There's an enormous difference between the two chairs being copied on
a mail thread, which did happen, and discussion being invoked in the two
bodies, which did not happen.

> Neither of those provide a substantive response to the concern about 

The concern, as I understand it, was about potential bias in the selection
of Nomcom. And I have responded - IMHO the correct fix is for the process
document to be specific about where the NomCom Chair should go for
advice when there is a glitch in the selection process.

     Brian

---

From: "todd glassey" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2006 07:46:58 -0700

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Theodore Tso" <[email-masked]>
To: "todd glassey" <[email-masked]>
Cc: "Brian E Carpenter" <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>; <>
Sent: Sunday, September 10, 2006 7:06 PM
Subject: Re: Crisis of Faith - was Re: Adjusting the Nomcom process

> Todd, it's clear you don't have any faith in anyone on the IESG

Why should I - this is a standards process not a Church or an organized
religion. Faith is what you put into processes and things unknown and that
IS NOT what the IETF's Standards Process is/are supposed to be.

> (they
> aren't "staff", by the way, they are volunteers),

No Ted - they are formally appointed "staff members" in formally defined
roles with defined standing. The fact that they were given a vote also gave
them a liability as well - I bet Jorge and the other lawyers ever told you
that eh?

As to them being compensated staff - they are exactly that. They are
compensated for their standing "by a tremendous value to their professional
careers" and they accept that value in lieu of formal compensation, so
although they are not paid formally, they are exactly that - compensated
staff.

But Ted - you keep dancing around language to try and keep the IESG from
being responsible - its what you folks do best as far as I can tell.

> but at the same

Who cares what the vast majority of people here think This list has 30 or 40
members of the IETF talking and that is it. If that constitutes a VAST
MAJORITY of anything within the IETF... well I am betting the rest of the
list gets the point.

> strident attacks quite frankly weaken your own credibility.

So then you are saying that the right way to address the IEWSG is to kiss
its *ss and that this is the way to get things done?

> So if you

Ted - you take an attack on the system as an attack against you personally
or Brian and that documents the the issues herein and your own gross
incompetence to stand in any role where you are makling decisions about
others IP Initiatives.

Bluntly Ted - this IETF needs a total overhaul and you and the the rest of
the IESG who are desparately trying to protect their Jobs need to be shown
the door IMHO.

Sorry but its the histrory of your (the IESG's) gross screw-ups. A blanket
history of approving process after process and implementing it without
bothering to get any of the Sponsor's legal agreements. You crack me up...
this is basic organizational dynamics 101 and any first year OR student
could see the flaws here.

---

From: Carl Malamud <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2006 16:56:54 -0700 (PDT)

Hi Ted -

I've tried to stay out of this, since there has been too much comment.
But, I'd like to amplify your point and some others I've heard.

1. I'm offended by Todd's repeated implication that Brian has lied 
to the IETF.  That is an ad hominen attack and goes well beyond 
the stated purpose of this mailing list.

2. If somebody wants to change the way the nomcom process works,
they should do what we did when the system was put in place: write
a document and get consensus.  The IETF is all about running code,
and that includes "business processes."  An I-D is the first step.
Repeated attempts to bypass the process (e.g., by making up policy
on the fly and posting it to the IETF list instead of writing an
I-D) goes well beyond the stated purpose of this mailing list.

3. Repeated threats of legal actions, invocations of Jorge, and
other tactics meant to bully participants do not qualify as
reasoned discourse and do not contribute to the stated purpose
of this mailing list.

I would encourage our sergeant at arms and our leadership to take
more active steps to keep discussion on the general mailing list
on track.  At the very least, discussants should be actively enouraged
to move their discourse to more specialized mailing lists.

Regards,

Carl

---

From: Theodore Tso <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2006 01:51:12 -0400

On Wed, Sep 13, 2006 at 07:25:00PM -0400, Dean Anderson wrote:
> IETF volunteer staff are employees of the ISOC. That they aren't paid
> may make them gratuitous employees (see below). Gratuitous employees are
> still employees with just about the same obligations and duties of paid
> employees.  I just happen to have the Restatement of the Law of Agency
> open:

Dean,

	Neither of us are lawyers, and even if we were, the
application of the facts to law is not within the scope of the IETF
mailing list.  I'm also confused what point you are trying to make,
but I suggest this particular thread be moved off of the IETF list, as
it is not in scope of the list charter.

	Regards,

						- Ted

---

From: "todd glassey" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2006 05:38:36 -0700

Thanks Dean -

Which brings up the issues of liability and agency... Especially since there
is no HOLD HARMLESS component of the Boilerplate.

Todd
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Dean Anderson" <[email-masked]>
To: "Theodore Tso" <[email-masked]>
Cc: "todd glassey" <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>;
<[email-masked]>
Sent: Wednesday, September 13, 2006 4:25 PM
Subject: Re: Crisis of Faith - was Re: Adjusting the Nomcom process

> ======================
> § 16 Consideration
> The relation of principal and agent can be created although neither
> party receives consideration.
>
> § 16 Comment b. Gratuitous agents
> [...] However, during the existence of the relation a gratuitous agent
> has the same power to affect the principal.s relations with third
> persons as if he were paid, and his liabilities to and rights against
> third persons are the same. Further, he may be liable to the principal
> for failing to perform a promise on which the principal has relied (see
> § 378), or for harm caused by his careless performance (see § 379), and
> he is subject to all the paid agent.s duties of loyalty. See § 387,
> Comment c.  Likewise a gratuitous agent has the same rights of indemnity
> against the principal as has the paid agent. See §§ 438-440.
> ======================
>
>
> IETF employees also receive benefits such as insurance, educational
> benefits, and sometimes travel benefits.  This makes them paid employees
>
> ======================
> § 441 comment d. Non-gratuitous services not paid for in money. A person
> may act for compensation and not gratuitously although he receives no
> money or other thing for his services, as where one learning a trade or
> profession renders services in consideration of the opportunity offered
> him to gain skill. Likewise, the services of an agent whose compensation
> is contingent upon a condition which does not occur are not given
> gratuitously.  In both cases the one acting has the duties and rights of
> an agent acting for compensation, either in an action of contract, if
> the principal commits a breach of contract, or, under some
> circumstances, in an action for restitution.
> ======================
>
>
>
>
>
> On Sun, 10 Sep 2006, Theodore Tso wrote:
>
> Av8 Internet   Prepared to pay a premium for better service?
> www.av8.net         faster, more reliable, better service
> 617 344 9000
>
>
>

---

From: "todd glassey" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2006 08:46:43 -0700

Ted not being a lawyer doesn't mean the IESG or the IETF gets to erect
processes or methods which are contrary to the Public Policies of the United
States since ISOC is a US Corporation, or likewise  which violates any US
Laws or Treaties that the US has with other Countries; Likewise this
probably also
pertains to state laws as well.

Additional to US Law, it may also require compliance with the
EU Data Integrity, Privacy,  and Security Requirements since so many of our
participants are from Europe and the Email-Hosting services for many of the
IETF's WG's are here in the US.

Not being a lawyer means a lawyer needs to do a legal analysis on the
process and issue an opinion as to whether the contract's and their
components make sense.

Todd Glassey

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Theodore Tso" <[email-masked]>
To: "Dean Anderson" <[email-masked]>
Cc: "todd glassey" <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>;
<[email-masked]>
Sent: Wednesday, September 13, 2006 10:51 PM
Subject: Re: Crisis of Faith - was Re: Adjusting the Nomcom process