more). The general complain we hear is that the processes are generally
slow, so I am inclined to select someone who can put the hours.
A significant alternative to consider is to select someone who wants to find
ways to reduce the hours needed.
Note the kinds of examples that John cited; there are plenty of opportunities
for the IESG to do a good job, but without taking so much time out of an AD's
life. However this requires a) prioritizing what ADs will spend their time on
and, almost certainly, b) giving up some power.
For the 2nd term, unless there is substantially more negative feedback
than positive, reup the AD (we are told it takes about 1 year to learn the
ropes so to speak, so it is disruptive to keep replacing people before
they learn to do it well).
1. Again, we should consider whether it is reasonable to have "volunteer" jobs
that take a year to learn. Or, rather, we should consider the changes
necessary to alter that. Note that a job taking less effort might be able to
obtain candidates with more IETF experience, thereby reducing the learning
curve.
2. The idea of rough consensus is to seek a strongly dominant view. It turns
out that it also looks for a significant opposition. The opposition does not
have to be anywhere near as much as 50%. I suggest that the same principles
apply. If an AD cannot garner enough support to look like rough consensus in
their favor -- or, equivalently, if the AD garners significant opposition --
then they should not be an AD. It is not enough that there are some folks who
love the AD. And I am not suggesting that one or two IETF participants should
have a "veto" on AD selection.
I am suggestion that an AD (or candidate) who has developed a significant
constituency of opponents should not be selected.
For the 3rd term,
One of the underlying problems with the administration of the nomcom is the
serious lack of institutional memory. Even with the liaisons and the
previous-time chair participating, each nomcom a) reinvents itself, and b) has
essentially none of the history of rulemaking, guidelines or candidate detail
that was obtained by the previous nomcom.
If there is consensus around something like this, I think future Nomcom
members might very well follow the guidelines.
A Guidelines for Nomcom Participants would almost certainly be helpful.
d/
---
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
+1.408.246.8253
dcrocker a t ...
WE'VE MOVED to: www.bbiw.net
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf