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

[Barry Leiba <barryleiba at computer.org>]

There's a lot of stuff here, and I've set it aside and come back to it
a few times.  When I first read John's proposal, I thought many of the
same things that Joel mentioned, about giving the NomCom more options
to think of the slate holistically, rather than breaking the process
down into stages, and so on.

The further discussion has given me a different understanding.

As I see it, the main failure mode in John's proposal is this one:
There is an incumbent that the NomCom will be happy to return to her
position, with little or no reservation.  And there is at least one
*significantly* better candidate who would volunteer for the position
if the NomCom chose to open it up.

I suggest that the other cases are either neutral or show the new
proposal as better than what we have.  So let's consider how likely
the failure mode is to happen, and the relative effect a failure has
on the IETF.

I can't speak to the likelihood, but I can suggest that with the
current system, it's not just the NomCom that would happily reappoint
the incumbent.  The community as a whole probably knows that she's
doing well and will likely be reappointed, and so history shows that
there are likely to be few who volunteer for her spot.  That means
that with the current system, we probably won't have much of a choice
anyway, and so the superstar replacement probably won't be available
anyway.

In other words, it probably turns into a failure mode for both
systems, old as well as new.

As to the effect the failure has: By definition, the IETF has not
gotten the optimal leader in that position.  But the IETF *does* have
an effective leader whom the NomCom is happy with.

It strikes me that that's not so bad -- not a very serious failure.

And, so, opposing my initial "gut" response (and with the
understanding that I have not served on a NomCom), I find myself
agreeing with John.

Barry