John C Klensin allegedly wrote on 1/9/09 11:11 AM:
--On Friday, January 09, 2009 8:36 -0500 Scott Brim
<swb(_at_)employees(_dot_)org> wrote:
Hi Eliot.
I agree this is a problem ... but not one that we can solve
yet. At this time the face-to-face meetings are still
essential, and one cannot evaluate candidates without good
knowledge of what an I* member's life is like at them.
Scott,
Part of the reason for the current requirements is exactly what
I think you are suggesting -- to raise the odds that Nomcom
members will actually know the candidates and have had the
opportunity to see them in action in some roles.
But also that nomcom members have some clue to what the life of an
IAB/IESG member is like. I don't see how you can possibly understand
that without seeing it all in action at a face-to-face meeting.
However, my
impression from the outside is that the Nomcom is depending more
and more on questionnaires for potential candidates, requests
for written input from a variety of people, email requests to
candidates and others for information about specific issues and
perspectives, etc., and not on the prior knowledge of the Nomcom
members.
If that impression is correct, then the requirement for Nomcom
members to have attended a lot of IETF meetings may be less
relevant than it was a decade or so ago, even though one might
reasonably require that any volunteer have a firm expectation of
being able to attend f2f Nomcom meetings, participate in f2f
interviews, etc. (i.e., attend several meetings in succession
even if their earlier participation was less dense).
In addition, since Nomcoms seem to mostly evaluate and then
return incumbents (whether that is good or bad is a separate
issue; it is an observable fact), a case can be made that
evaluations from within the Nomcom about how I* members deal
with participants who do not routinely attend meetings could
actually enhance the Nomcom's effectiveness.
That's a point, but it would argue for having a quota of people who had
_not_ attended recent meetings on the nomcom, rather than just relaxing
the current requirement.
swb
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf