Brian - while I haven't thought through all of the implications of the
process in draft-klensin-nomcom-term-00.txt, I don't think the two-stage
process will necessarily significantly length then process. The
proposed process would require re-shuffling of of specific tasks, but I
don't think it fundamentally adds any new work to the work in the
current process. There are serialization and dependency timing issues,
but I think there is also some work that might be eliminated from the
current process.
The proposed process might also provide some time saving by
compartmentalizing the decision process - my intuition from recent
experience on nomcom is that some of the deliberation might have gone
more quickly if we had teased apart retention from nomination.
And some of the decision process would go away in the case of ADs who
have reached their term limits.
- Ralph
On Wed, 2005-07-27 at 15:13 +0200, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
Spencer,
I haven't fully analyzed the proposal yet, so I will refrain from
substantive comment.
However, in answer to your question, I'm sure the answer is no,
because the two-stage process suggested in the draft will add a
significant number of weeks to the process, and we would almost
certainly have to start about two months earlier. I haven't done
a detailed analysis of the timeline, but I'm pretty sure we
couldn't make it this year. And that's assuming we reached consensus
very rapidly.
Brian
Spencer Dawkins wrote:
This draft (available at
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-klensin-nomcom-term-00.txt)
does a reasonable job of balancing between current-generation leadership
continuity and next-generation leadership development.
I have previously expressed the opinion that an absolute prohibition on
four terms of continuous service would be preferable, but the
flexibility granted to NOMCOM in this proposal is acceptable (and I
could be wrong).
The current IETF is a better place because of several I* members who
have returned to the community - they are providing strong technical
leadership, without dots on badges. Honorable retirement after honorable
service on IESG or IAB is not a bad thing.
If I read RFC 3777 correctly, we will be assembling the next NOMCOM very
soon ("at least two months before the Third IETF"). So, I'm wondering...
If there is community consensus that this draft proposes something
reasonable, would we give the draft to the incoming NOMCOM as part of
their instructions and perform a BCP 93 process experiment?
Spencer
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf