Subject: Nomcom 2007-8 Chair's Report

From: Lakshminath Dondeti <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 05 Mar 2008 15:05:04 -0800

Folks,

A report on the nomcom's activities is available at 
https://www.tools.ietf.org/group/nomcom/07/nomcom-report.  Please direct 
any comments to [email-masked].  I will make a brief presentation at the 
IESG plenary.

Abstract

    This document reports on the work of Nomcom 2007-8.  The topics of
    discussion include the experiences in starting the nomcom process
    early enough to facilitate the nomcom to do their work at 2 face-to-
    face meetings, the various logistical challenges involved in the
    nomcom process and the differing interpretations of RFC 3777 by
    different people and organizations involved in the process.  This
    document also discusses the challenges in the interaction between the
    nomcom and the confirmation bodies.

regards,
Lakshminath
_______________________________________________
IETF mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

---

From: Ralph Droms <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2008 10:57:51 -0500

Lakshminath - thanks a lot for publishing this report.  We all  
appreciate and applaud the work you and the Nomcom put into this  
year's I* selections, and I especially appreciate that you invested  
the time and effort - after all that earlier hard work - to produce  
this report.  It will be of great value to future Nomcom chairs as  
well as the community as a whole, and I hope future Nomcom chairs will  
sustain the custom of producing similar reports (now I wish I had  
produced a report like yours after I served as Nomcom chair).

- Ralph

---

From: Lakshminath Dondeti <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 06 Mar 2008 11:16:38 -0800

Ralph,

Thanks for your kind words.  Indeed the nomcom members have put in a lot 
of hard work and as such deserve recognition.

For the most part, the credit for the conception of the report goes to 
the circumstances that led to dispute resolution during the confirmation 
process.  RFC 3777 says that the chair is to include the dispute report 
when reporting on the activities of the nominating committee.  Normally 
we report on the activities of the nomcom during the IESG plenary.  But, 
when there is a dispute report, it appears that a supplementary means of 
publishing the report is necessary.

That said, I agree with you that, keeping the confidentiality issues 
firmly in mind, future nomcom chairs should publish such reports in an 
attempt to make the nomcom process as open as possible.  I hope that the 
openness helps increase community participation in the process and 
encourage people to volunteer to be a voting member, provide feedback 
and accept nominations more so than in the past.

best regards,
Lakshminath

On 3/6/2008 7:57 AM, Ralph Droms wrote:
> appreciate and applaud the work you and the Nomcom put into this year's 
> I* selections, and I especially appreciate that you invested the time 
> and effort - after all that earlier hard work - to produce this report.  
> It will be of great value to future Nomcom chairs as well as the 
> community as a whole, and I hope future Nomcom chairs will sustain the 
> custom of producing similar reports (now I wish I had produced a report 
> like yours after I served as Nomcom chair).
> 
> - Ralph
>

---

From: Cary FitzGerald <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2008 13:51:07 -0800

Ralph,

best regards,
Lakshminath

On 3/6/2008 7:57 AM, Ralph Droms wrote:
> year's

---

From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 07 Mar 2008 07:44:50 +0100

>     nomcom and the confirmation bodies.
Laksminath,

thank you very much for providing the report - and thank you for trying 
to defend people's expectations of confidentiality!

I do agree with Scott that the process needs clarification - unlike him, 
I think it can be done without reopening 3777 on this point.

I'll have more to say when that discussion opens up.

              Harald

---

From: Lakshminath Dondeti <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 06 Mar 2008 23:51:26 -0800

On 3/6/2008 10:44 PM, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
>> https://www.tools.ietf.org/group/nomcom/07/nomcom-report.  Please 
>> direct any comments to [email-masked].  I will make a brief 
>> presentation at the IESG plenary.
>>
>> Abstract
>>

Hi Harald,

<as nomcom chair>
You are welcome.

> I think it can be done without reopening 3777 on this point.

<speaking as an individual>
Sure, there are ways.

A solution without changing 3777 is for future chairs to be made aware 
that this is coming and advise them that they need to prepare accordingly.

First, it will be great if the IAB could clarify their requirements.  It 
is simply not acceptable to say candidate statement == questionnaire 
response.  Nomcoms may collect all kinds of information from nominees 
through a questionnaire or for that matter, other means.  The 
questionnaire itself is prepared by a nomcom process.  They cannot share 
that information just because a confirmation body asks for it pointing 
to their own internal documents.

Future nomcoms could, in the absence of any response from the current 
IAB or the one a week from today, include an item in the questionnaire 
that asks for information for IAB's consumption: specifically, CV and 
"candidate's statement" (nominee's statement, when the nomcom asks for 
it) pointing to http://www.iab.org/documents/docs/2003-07-23-nomcom.html.

Note: A variation of the above idea has been suggested by others.  I am 
not coming up with anything original there.

Of course the question then is, what purpose does 3777 serve when a 
confirming body chooses to prepare their own list of what needs to be 
provided as supporting material?  To repeat my own take on this, of all 
things, 3777 is quite clear on what needs to be provided.  There is no 
ambiguity whatsoever.  The text that the IAB point to -- "all 
information and any means acceptable to them" does not say anything 
about the nomcom facilitating it.  Now one could say, "any means 
acceptable" includes not confirming until the information they ask for 
is provided.  If we go down that road however, the same text reference 
could be used (note: hypothetical case) to ask for community feedback.

The other question is why should the IAB get any special consideration 
here?  Surely, the IESG and the ISOC BoT could ask for more information 
too and should be privy to the same level of information that IAB is 
privy to.

So, we also need to be consistent, however we choose to do this going 
forward.  What is not good is to leave it be and let each nomcom fight 
it out with the IAB.

> I'll have more to say when that discussion opens up.

The time is now, assuming that the next nomcom starts 2-3 months from 
now.  The timing is especially crucial if the consensus points to an 
update to 3777 to resolve this as Scott has concluded.

regards,
Lakshminath

---

From: Harald Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 07 Mar 2008 09:10:40 +0100

Lakshminath Dondeti wrote:
>> thank you very much for providing the report - and thank you for 
>> trying to defend people's expectations of confidentiality!
>
> Hi Harald,
>
> <as nomcom chair>
> You are welcome.
>
>
>>
>> I do agree with Scott that the process needs clarification - unlike 
>> him, I think it can be done without reopening 3777 on this point.
>
> First, it will be great if the IAB could clarify their requirements.  
> It is simply not acceptable to say candidate statement == 
> questionnaire response.  Nomcoms may collect all kinds of information 
> from nominees through a questionnaire or for that matter, other 
> means.  The questionnaire itself is prepared by a nomcom process.  
> They cannot share that information just because a confirmation body 
> asks for it pointing to their own internal documents.
Agreed - and one of the process failures here is that a nomcom that 
includes the previous chair and a liaison from the IAB designed a 
questionnaire in ignorance of the stated requirements; if the IAB 
expects the nomcom to consider the IAB's desires on the process when 
starting work, it's the IAB's responsibility to call attention to them.

(that said, I too was unaware of the IAB document - and I was relatively 
closely connected to the process in June 2003.....)
> Note: A variation of the above idea has been suggested by others.  I 
> am not coming up with anything original there.
My suggestion is even more simple-minded: Put markers in the 
questionnaire around the sections
- Resume
- About the Area
(possibly more sections)
saying "these sections will be provided to the confirming bodies if you 
are forwarded to the confirming body as a candidate. All other 
information is confidential to the nomcom".

The questionnaire is under nomcom's control, and the decision to forward 
information is the nomcom's - the way I read it, the problem this year 
was that candidates couldn't reasonably be consulted about changing 
their privacy expectations after the fact.

But that requires that someone at questionnaire design time is aware of 
the requiremement to provide such information.
> provided as supporting material?  To repeat my own take on this, of 
> all things, 3777 is quite clear on what needs to be provided.  There 
> is no ambiguity whatsoever.  The text that the IAB point to -- "all 
> here?  Surely, the IESG and the ISOC BoT could ask for more 
> information too and should be privy to the same level of information 
> that IAB is privy to.
I think the ISOC Board is far more reticent about questioning the 
choices of the Nomcom than the IAB is, for multiple reasons.... agree 
that it's reasonable to get their expectations on the table, too.
> update to 3777 to resolve this as Scott has concluded. 
OK - I've changed the subject line and started debating....

             Harald

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 08 Mar 2008 11:21:03 +1300

> Lakshminath Dondeti wrote:

...
> that it's reasonable to get their expectations on the table, too.

The three cases are a little different, which explains the different
interpretations, I think:

The IESG is asked to confirm a single IAOC appointment. Given that
the nominee is almost certain to be an experienced and reasonably
prominent IETF participant, the chance that several IESG members
know the nominee quite well is very high. So it seems very unlikely
that the IESG will ask for extra information.

The ISOC Board is asked to confirm a slate of generalists, from
a technical community, whereas the Board members are mainly
drawn from a wider and more managerial community. They are more
or less obliged to take the slate on trust, unless there is some
very glaring anomaly. Although the ISOC Board might ask questions
if something looks anomalous, they are much more likely to ask
"Are you sure about that?" than to request extra details.

The IAB is asked to confirm a set of specific managerial
appointments, sometimes including people who are virtually
unknown to the IAB, sometimes for jobs where there are known
to be contentious or unresolved issues. It's no surprise that
the IAB is likely to want more detailed input than the other
two confirming bodies.

>> forward.  What is not good is to leave it be and let each nomcom fight 

Fully agree. In fact, given that the IAB expectations have been on
the web for >4 years, it's surprising this debate hasn't happened
before.

My opinion: There's nothing in 3777 that limits the supporting
information that NomCom may provide to the confirming body,
although this would be clearer if section 5 point 14 included the
words "at least".

The confirming body is explicitly allowed to "communicate with
the nominating committee both to explain the reason why all the
candidates were not confirmed and to understand the nominating
committee's rationale for its candidates." What isn't quite clear
in this is whether this communication can be interim (i.e. "we need
to know more about X and Y before we can confirm them").
Rationally, that should be allowed.

However, my feeling is that the IAB requirements listed since
2003 look more like second-guessing the NomCom than I believe
was intended by the consensus behind 3777. I don't want to
criticise the IAB for performing due diligence, or to suggest
that they can't be trusted with the confidential information,
but should they really be checking NomCom's every move? That
was not the practice up through 2002.

Just to be clear: I left the IAB as a regular member in 3/2002,
and I was an IAB member as IETF Chair 3/2005-3/2007, but
recused from all discussion of this issue. I was also ISOC's
liaison to NomCom in 2003/2004 (under the old RFC2727 rules).

     Brian

---

From: Danny McPherson <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 8 Mar 2008 12:39:15 -0700

> the web for >4 years, it's surprising this debate hasn't happened

One might argue that it has, and it's specifically what prompted
clarify - yet still ambiguous text regarding precisely what constitutes
'testimony' in RFC 3777.

> Rationally, that should be allowed.

And practically speaking, one would hope that communication
occurs.

> was not the practice up through 2002.

This all depends on ones definition of 'confirmation', which is
still clearly ambiguous according to RFC 3777 and interpretation
varies from NomCom to NomCom, confirming body to confirming
body, and year to year.  What I can say as an individual having
participated on 4 recent NomComs (one as voting member, one as
chair, one as advisor, one as IAB liaison), is this..

1) Being a NomCom member is an incredible amount of work

2) Nothing is more frustrating than the integrity of the NomCom
being questioned, or for the NomCom to feel as though it's being
second guessed

3) The role of the confirming body is, IMO, ambiguous, but it's
something I can assure you the IAB takes _very seriously, and
with good reason.

I consider the current process sufficiently flexible, although items
2 & 3 above tend to create tension, and less ambiguity in this area
would clearly be of benefit, in particular to the parties involved
on the NomCom or a confirming body.

-danny

---

From: Danny McPherson <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 8 Mar 2008 12:41:44 -0700

> starting work, it's the IAB's responsibility to call attention to  

Agreed, and the IAB has put mechanisms in place to ensure
that said requirements are explicitly provided to the NomCom
up front in the future, FWIW.

-danny
/your ignorant 2007-08 IAB NomCom Liaison
_______________________________________________
IETF mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf