At 12:10 PM 9/5/2006, Keith Moore wrote:
> 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.
Liaisons' role in the nomcom has been interesting from my first hand
observation. Some of them provide input when asked, occasionally
provide "personal" advice labeling it as such, and communicate
"official" input from the folks who appointed them. That is the
level of involvement I appreciate. However, there are some folks who
do more than that. Perhaps it is done with good intentions and
sometimes that level of input is in fact appreciated by nomcom
members who are looking for more input than they are getting (yes,
that is sometimes the case. It is hard to select when you are
unfamiliar with the area and the deadlines are looming to do any
amount of research). However, my guess would be that in the long run
activist liaisons undermine the nomcom process. There is language in
the current RFCs, but it can use some tightening. If others feel
that way, let's work on a draft offline.
The other suggestion/concern raised recently was about the number of
folks with one affiliation. Perhaps, and especially if liaisons are
expected to be *even* active (not necessarily activist) in their
roles on nomcom, we should consider non-voting members in counting
the number of folks with one affiliation.
thanks,
Lakshminath
> 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
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf