ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Nomcom is responsible for IESG qualifications

2013-03-07 18:55:22
On Thu, Mar 7, 2013 at 5:23 PM, Spencer Dawkins
<spencer(_at_)wonderhamster(_dot_)org> wrote:
On 3/7/2013 5:01 PM, Ted Hardie wrote:

On Thu, Mar 7, 2013 at 1:56 PM, Joel M. Halpern 
<jmh(_at_)joelhalpern(_dot_)com>
wrote:


One of the interesting things is that the nomcom does not in practice
have a
way to tell the community exactly what it decided the job requirements
are.


Why is the Nomcom report not a mechanism to do this?


Ted,

I just sent Joel a note about this privately, but since you mention it ...

I think part of the reason may be that if there's a gap between the job
description that the willing nominees saw before they said they were willing
to be considered and the job description that the Nomcom actually used, you
might not end up with the same willing nominees in both cases. (*)

So the Nomcom report at the first IETF meeting of the year would be a good
place to talk about what got changed, but too late for nominees who were a
better match for the Nomcom's description than the initial description to
agree to be considered.
[MB] Personally, I don't think the .ppts at the plenary should be the
only "Nomcom report".  It's really hard to tease things out from
bullet points.  Per my earlier note, I believe the community should
expect that the nomcom chair produce a written report in a form
similar to what had been done previously - e.g., 2009-2010 and
2008-2009 were the last two I am aware of.  That would allow the
community to read the report and discuss things rather than make
assumptions about bullet points during a live meeting. [/MB]

Thanks,

Spencer (**)

(*) Ideally, you end up with better willing nominees if they know the
description Nomcom will be using

(**) I've been on one Nomcom as IAB liaison, and never as a voting member

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>