Re: [ietf-nomcom] Changing the candidate selection model

["Joel M. Halpern" <jmh at joelhalpern.com>]

John's reply on his alternative nomcom procedure emphasized one 
dimension taht I want to explore a bit on its own.  John's interesting 
note is removed, because I at least need to think more about it.

A number of his comments and quesitons, if I have understood him right, 
relate to the question of getting enough good nominees.  This is indeed 
a problem.

I believe, and I may be mistaken, that this problem is reflective of 
both IETF cultural and corporate perspectives.  I think this can be 
addressed, and should be addressed.  Where we disagree on this is 
whether the right way to deal with it is by changing the rules.

Note: I do not know enough about social dynamics to know how to get some 
of these changes through.
Firstly, we have got to convince the community that even with regard to 
1 term ADs (the most extreme example where there is known reticence to 
run), being willing to run, and saying so, has got to be seen as a 
contribution to the community, rather than as a competition.  That is, 
the assertion someone is being asked to makes should not be "I am better 
than the incumbent," but rather "I believe I could do this job, and I am 
willing to do so."
The point is that the community needs folks willing and able to make 
that second statement.  It ought to be seen as a warning to any area 
that they have a problem if there are not a number of credible people 
making that statement.
And folks need to understand that it is a service, to the IETF as a 
whole and their area, to say that (and mean it) even if they think the 
area is in good shape and they would like to see the incumbent continue.

Two positive examples:
In one area, a nomcom went looking for nominees.  The nomcom found a 
number.  Most of them said "If X still wants the job, give it to him. 
If you won't do that, for whatever reason, then I am willing to serve." 
 That is good for the nomcom, good for the area, and good for the IETF 
as as whole.
In another area, In know that the AD who was up for reappointment said 
to his area leadership that he is willing to be appointed again, but 
that he would strongly engourage other folks to offer themselves to the 
nomcom, so as to enable the nomcom to make the judgment.

Both of these represent positive attitudes towards the process.  Having 
folks refuse to be nominated, or refuse to serve, hinders the process.


The other side of the coin is the corporate support issue.  That needs 
some attention.  But there are multiple subtle problems there, and 
changing the odds in the one regard of incumbents does not address the 
major issues I see.  Thus, I will punt on that for now.

Yours,
Joel M. Halpern