Ross Callon <rcallon(_at_)juniper(_dot_)net> wrote:
In the past there have been cases where some specific IESG members have
been perceived by some members of the community as being a problem.
I would be amazed if it were otherwise; in fact I'd be surprised if
you could name a NomCom where no such case arose...
There have also been some cases of perceived friction between areas of
the IETF (the issues which I have been aware of in the past have been
fixed as of several years ago).
IMHO, better tools have helped there...
There are also of course many cases where various problems (big ones
and little ones) in the operation of the IETF have been fixed by
various combinations of IETF participants. I would strongly prefer to
avoid details.
A NomCom probably _can't_ avoid learning details. :^(
It seems to me that having some personal knowledge of at least some of
these cases would be helpful in the task of picking future members of
the IETF leadership.
I don't think that follows.
Between any two individuals there _will_ be sources of friction.
The NomCom will face an impossible task if they try to analyze all
combinations for friction. They should instead seek to learn how
candidates _deal_with_ friction.
Of course experience in the IETF operation is not a guarantee of
knowledge of (some of) these cases, and knowledge of past cases is
not a guarantee of making perfect selections of candidates in the
future (and none of us are perfect, which implies that there is no
chance of selecting perfect candidates).
All true...
However, some experience among some of the nomcom voting members does,
in my opinion, significantly improve the chances that such past
experience will be taken into consideration in the difficult task of
choosing between multiple good but imperfect choices for our leadership.
But which _particular_ experience sets will help? I don't think we
can know that. And I've seen many particular experience-sets which
instead lead to entrenched beliefs as to how the IESG (e.g.) should
operate.
Having two such entrenched beliefs on the NomCom is unlikely to
help... :^(
I also think that having personal knowledge and experience with how
the IETF works is very useful in making choices among the people who
have volunteered for IETF leadership positions.
Following that to its logical conclusion, only IESG members know
enough to pick their successors. We have soundly rejected that idea.
I have never been a voting member of nomcom, but was a liaison to
nomcom once. The particular nomcom to which I was liaison happened
to have some very experienced members, as well as some less
experienced members. This was very helpful IMHO.
You know better than I, but I certainly tend to agree...
To me Jari's argument of wanting to bring new blood into the process
is an argument for why some, and in fact the majority, of nomcom
voting members should be chosen without the additional experience
requirement proposed in the draft IETF leadership document.
Which, of course, is exactly where we are today...
The devil is in the details here. How can we impose additional
experience requirements on some NomCom members without implying that
we want their opinions to be considered "better"?
--
John Leslie <john(_at_)jlc(_dot_)net>
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf