[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [ietf-nomcom] Confidentiality and information from former NomCom members



OK, I'd really like for someone to tell us what this text was intended to allow, because I'm seeing a past NomCom chair saying that it's obviously broken, but the text is in the process BCP...

:-(

Thanks,

Spencer


I don't know what to make of that text. While I can imagine exceptions, as a general rule that is so obviously a bad idea that it never occurred to me it was within the rules.

Joel

Bernie Hoeneisen wrote:
Hi Ralph, Joel et al.

I looks like there is no common understanding of the following part of RFC 3777:

    "It is consistent with this rule for current nominating committee
     members who have served on prior nominating committees to advise
     the current committee on deliberations and results of the prior
     committee, as necessary and appropriate."

Could anybody explain this further (what does this forbid/allow?), and in particular for what reason it was put there when RFC 3777 was drafted?

cheers,
 Bernie


On Wed, 3 Jun 2009, Ralph Droms wrote:

Joel - I agree with your interpretation of the confidentiality requirements. When I was in the situation you are in now, as past NomCom chair I do not think I had the right to make any of the information from the NomCom I chaired to the subsequent NomCom to which I was an advisor. And I would not want to change that rule.

- Ralph

On Jun 3, 2009, at 9:01 AM 6/3/09, Joel M. Halpern wrote:

I don't read things the same way you do.
I don't think someone who was on nomcom A and is now on nomcom B can tell B "nomcom A, in discussing person X, found major problem Y." Nor, in fact, can they relay any other aspects of the discussion within nomcom A to nomcom B.
They can say "Personally, I have problem Y with person X."
There are of course multiple gray areas in between.

Assuming that my reading is accurate, I would also prefer not to change that. (To take an extreme example, I have a fairly good archive of last year's nomcom. As far as I am concerned I can not, and should not be allowed to, forward that archive to Mary, or to her committee, even though I am an advisor to that committee and presumably allowed to provide personally known factual information to that committee.)

Yours,
Joel

Bernie Hoeneisen wrote:
Hi,
Reviewing the latest "openlist" reminded me of some earlier question / suggestion I made earlier to the ietf-nomcom list. So far I have not got any feedback. Probably as it was buried under some much hotter topic (in the same email)...
Here is comes again:
* 3rd paragraph and former NomCom members:
   "It is consistent with this rule for current nominating committee
    members who have served on prior nominating committees to advise
    the current committee on deliberations and results of the prior
    committee, as necessary and appropriate."
As I understand this, current NomCom members who have served on prior
NomComs are allowed to share information they have as a result of their
membership in prior NomComs.
- Could anybody confirm, that my understanding about this is correct?
* Suggestion for change:
I suggest to explicitely allow any member of a former NomCom to share
with the current NomCom any information relevant to the current NomCom.
Such kind of information is most useful to current NomComs.
- Any opinions on changing this as suggested?
- How about changing this along with "openlist"?
  (Note that this part of RFC 3777 is already cited in "openlist".)
cheers,
Bernie
_______________________________________________
ietf-nomcom mailing list
ietf-nomcom at ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-nomcom
_______________________________________________
ietf-nomcom mailing list
ietf-nomcom at ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-nomcom


_______________________________________________
ietf-nomcom mailing list
ietf-nomcom at ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-nomcom




Note Well: Messages sent to this mailing list are the opinions of the senders and do not imply endorsement by the IETF.