On Jul 17, 2010, at 8:48 AM, Dave CROCKER wrote:
Folks,
Nomcom has been an integral part of the IETF for nearly 20 years.
A number of us have been developing a set of recommendations designed to
adapt the Nomcom process to better match current realities of the IETF
community. The draft has progressed far enough to call for public
consideration.
Some of the proposal's recommendations require no changes in formal rules.
They
can be adopted immediately, possibly by the current Nomcom, should it so
choose.
Others require a formal development and approval cycle.
At:
<http://www.bbiw.net/recent.html#nomcom2010>
there is a copy of the Full Proposal, and a Summary which primarily contains
just the recommendations.
......
Please feel free to discuss the proposal with any of the authors or folks
listed
in the Acknowledgments section, or on this list.
I read the summary version of it: seems to me a timely effort in improving our
process. it'd be great if we could do this for next nomcom:)
One comment, then one new suggestion for you to consider.
The comment: I support the idea of having a second 'expertise' pool of
volunteers, but I wonder where comes this suggestion of selecting *3* members
from this pool. A few random questions:
- Do we know what is this number for the last several NOMCOMs?
- Assuming ISOC keeps the records of NOMCOM volunteers over time: what
percentage of volunteers that would fall into this second pool?
- Did this number "3" come from a rough expectation on how many NOMCOM members
should have this "direct involvement in the process of IETF leadership
(IAB/IESG/WG chair)?
e.g. say you expect total 5 people with experience, you pick 3 from 2nd pool
first, then expect 2 more from the bigger pool ...
Personally I feel (1) there should be a expected low threshold of NOMCOM member
with this direct IETF leadership experience, and (2)this threshold should be
higher than 3.
Now the suggestion: Since some of the suggested enhancements would require
modifications to 3777, I'd like to bring up another thought I've had for a long
time: the current NOMCOM eligibility requirement (3 of the last 5 IETF
meetings) seems a bit low, I feel that a longer experience with IETF process
than 2 years (as minimum) requirement could help NOMCOM's decision process, as
IETF is already over 24 years old now with a pretty long and rich history.
Take into account the fact that many people probably do not attend all IETF
meetings, as a strawman for a longer IETF experience, what about attending 5 of
the last 8 or 10 meetings?
that's all for now, and thanks to all for doing this important work!
Lixia
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf