Correct - I was not specifically referring to folks that previously had been
on Nomcom.
However, there are certainly folks that had previously served on Nomcom that
do volunteer again - last year's Nomcom had a voting member that had been on
3 or 4 other Nomcoms and several others that had been on prior nomcoms. I
think the two pool approach might increase the probability of getting folks
with past nomcom experience and one thought would be to include folks with
past nomcom experience in the first tier pool to increase the chances of
such.
Mary.
On Fri, Jul 30, 2010 at 6:15 AM, Aaron Falk <falk(_at_)bbn(_dot_)com> wrote:
On 7/30/10 9:46 AM, Marshall Eubanks wrote:
On Jul 30, 2010, at 3:11 AM, Mary Barnes wrote:
Just to add my two cents to this discussion from a (past) noncom chair
perpsective, having more experienced IETF participants on the Nomcom helps
tremendously. It makes it far easier for the noncom chair and non-voting
members (previous nomcom chair and liaisons) to stick to the roles as
specified in RFC 3777 in terms of facilitatng and ensuring the integrity of
the process and not influencing the decisions of the nomcom. In the end,
each voting member gets one vote (using a methodology agreed by the voting
members), so the positives of ensuring the nomcom has experienced members
far outweigh any perceived negatives in my experience.
I was discussing this with various people yesterday - maybe it would be
useful to have a "moving average" NOMCOM, with a two year term, and 50%
replacement each year. Once that was set up, I think that the need for
experienced hands would diminish - one year on the NOMCOM seems to be quite
a bit of experience.
I don't think Mary is talking about members with previous nomcom experience
but rather more IETF experience. I agree. In fact, why should we have
nomcom members with little IETF experience picking our leadership?
--aaron
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf