What the liaisons all have in common is that they are part of the
existing IETF management structure. The potential for this producing a
process that tends to cater to the established structure, rather than
explore alternatives, seems rather straightforward, no matter how
diligent everyone is. That is, this seems an inherent bias.
Indeed, but is it an inherently bad bias? Surely continuity is worth
something, at least in some situations? The NOMCOM is free to ignore
input from the liasons if it decides that there is more benefit to the
community from disrupting the management structure than from catering
to it.
A straightforward means of obtaining more diverse input is to make
candiates' names public. This permits the rest of the community to
decide whether to comment, rather than limiting Nomcom input to those
who the Nomcom chooses to solicit. (No, this is not a new idea.)
On balance, I think it would be preferable to make candidates' names
public as long as their consent is obtained before doing so. Better
yet might be to expect all willing candidates to publicly announce
their willingness to serve if chosen. That would have several positive
effects - it would make the community aware of the candidate slate, it
would invite people to provide input to NOMCOM about those candidates,
it would make the community aware of areas in which viable candidates
were in short supply. Yes it could be embarassing to those not chosen,
but if you're going to be on IESG you'll have to deal with far worse
than that. (being on IAB doesn't seem quite so bad, but I've never
actually done it.)
Keith
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf