Joel M. Halpern <joel(_at_)stevecrocker(_dot_)com> wrote:
My biggest worry is the one piece of structure that has no wiggle room.
As defined, if the Nomcom in phase 1 decides not to reappoint the
incumbent, there is no way to recover if that turns out not to work.
I must disagree.
This "decision" is never publicized; so it is easily revisited if
replacing that individual proves difficult.
Further, I do not read the draft as requiring a black-and-white
binary judgment on whether to replace an individual: I read it as
requiring consideration of how effective an individual is before
looking at who's available to replace him/her.
I'd like to believe this could lead to non-judgmental discussions
between the Nomcom and individuals whose terms are expiring about how
the IETF community views their strengths and weaknesses. I don't expect
even the individual involved to know whether the Nomcom is expecting to
recommend someone else for that position.
(This raises the question of how we might preserve some institutional
memory of strengths and weaknesses. Alas, I have no good ideas there.)
--
John Leslie <john(_at_)jlc(_dot_)net>
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf