On 8/1/05 at 10:50 AM +0200, Scott W Brim wrote:
It's one thing to give the NomCom guidelines, it's another to constrict them.
The document gives them guidelines and does not constrict them. Where
is the problem?
The document expresses a preference (and the community needs to be
heard on whether they agree with that preference) that after 1-term,
the NomCom should default to reappoint good folks (because it's worth
having folks with 1 term of experience stay on) and after 2 terms
should default to not reappoint (in order to get some new folks
experience and get the experience folks back on the ground and into
other non-IESG work). I personally would like to see more people get
experience on the IESG and get some IESG brain cells back into the
community before they're completely burned out, so I kind of like the
proposal. But I don't see where you're having a problem.
The NomCom should be defended strongly against people who don't like
the way things are going in IETF management.
I cannot tell you how much I disagree with that statement. The NomCom
should hear the people who don't like the way things are going in
IETF management *loud and clear*. The current IETF management is
represented with liaisons on the NomCom, so the NomCom gets plenty of
input from folks participating in "the way things are going in IETF
management". And overall, it's *much* easier for the NomCom (and the
community) to pat everyone on the head and say "You're doing a fine
job." When someone gets up the gumption to complain about the
leadership, that should get serious consideration. Sometimes people
complaining are just being complainers. But I see no reason to
"defend" the NomCom against complainers in general.
If you believe that competency in the job is just one criterion, and
that potential competency should be considered important ... tell
the NomCom.
If there is community consensus that there are such criteria,
communicating them in a document seems quite reasonable (and more
efficient than having NomCom solicit individuals).
Forcing *all* IESG or IAB members out, even if doing so hurts the
IETF and the Internet, to
avoid embarrassment of someone who shouldn't be there is just too
"politically correct".
Scott, what in the draft would force this case? This is just FUD mongering.
pr
--
Pete Resnick <http://www.qualcomm.com/~presnick/>
QUALCOMM Incorporated
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf