On Sun, Oct 22, 2006 at 12:40:03PM -0400, John C Klensin wrote:
Suppose potential candidates exist in the community who believe
that they have ideas that would significantly rearrange the
workload --within the bounds established by existing,
documented, procedures-- so as to make the community less
dependent on two-year commitments of huge blocks of time from a
small number of individuals and, consequently, see the time
commitment required by the job differently. I am expressing the
hope that such people would apply for the positions, and
initiate a dialogue with the Nomcom about them, without being
unreasonably deterred by incumbent job descriptions and time
estimates. I also hope that the Nomcom would take such
candidacies seriously and would evaluate the hypotheses about
different ways to structure the roles (again, within the bounds
identified in consensus documents) in a careful and serious way,
rather than checking off "not willing to commit as much time as
the descriptions claim is necessary".
Well, hopefully the Nomcom would have the discussion with those
potential IESG members around the topic "What if you are wrong and
your ideas don't pan out and it really does take as much time as past
history has suggested?"
I would also argue that ideas about how to significantly rearrange the
workload are things shouldn't be happening as part of the nomcom
process, but part of an open discussion so that all stakeholders have
a chance to comment. Those ideas should be applicable regardless of
who the candidate might be for a particular position, right?
- Ted
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf