John,
I agree with everything you wrote. I especially applaud SM for getting
out there with new ideas, and I like the idea of opening up eligibility
a bit more. John's proposed change would reduce risk of capture. I do
think that risk is also mitigated through other mechanisms (like
limiting the number of people with the same affiliation from joining the
NOMCOM), but Ted's point is also important, that people have some feel
for how the IETF operates, both in person and on mailing list. John's
proposal seems to strike a good balance.
Eliot
On 6/27/13 2:36 PM, John Curran wrote:
On Jun 27, 2013, at 5:50 AM, S Moonesamy <sm+ietf(_at_)elandsys(_dot_)com>
wrote:
Hello,
RFC 3777 specifies the process by which members of the Internet Architecture
Board, Internet Engineering Steering Group and IETF Administrative Oversight
Committee are selected, confirmed, and recalled.
draft-moonesamy-nomcom-eligibility proposes an update RFC 3777 to allow
remote contributors to the IETF Standards Process to be eligible to serve on
NomCom and sign a Recall petition (
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-moonesamy-nomcom-eligibility-00 ).
Could you please read the draft and comment?
SM -
I have read the draft, and believe that it moves the qualification to
serve on the NomCom in the right direction. Long-term, it would be ideal
if remote IETF participation was equivalent (both as an experience and as
a NomCom qualification) to in-person IETF participation.
Noting agreement in the direction, the reality of remote participation
today is somewhat different. In recent years, I have been a frequent
remote participant and occasional on-site participant, and while it is
possible to effectively contribute to working group efforts remotely,
such success is predicated on knowing quite a bit about IETF processes
and workflow, and it not clear to me that a remote participant picks
up the necessary background at anywhere near the same rate as on-site
participants. As a result, I am concerned that the proposed language
in draft wouldn't necessarily provide for experienced IETF participants
in the NomCom, and/or those who have well-informed insight into what
makes for good IAB/IESG/IAOC members.
Note also that the proposed language also increases the possibility of
"capture" (i.e. the ability of an single organization to inappropriately
skew the outcome of the process) in that a relatively large pool of
remote participants could quickly be made NomCom-eligible by having them
attend the very next IETF meeting, and then all volunteered to serve on
the NomCom. While this is not a particularly likely course for a party
not happy with the IETF, it is an aspect to be considered in the NomCom
processes.
With an view towards finding a middle ground, would it be possible to
change your proposed text from:
"Members of the IETF community must have attended at least 3 of
last 5 IETF meetings remotely or in person including at least 1
of the 5 last IETF meetings in person in order to volunteer."
to this:
"Members of the IETF community must have attended at least 3 of
last 5 IETF meetings remotely or in person including at least _2_
of the 5 last IETF meetings in person in order to volunteer."
The change from 1 to 2 meetings being in-person significantly reduces the
potential risk of capture while also increasing the exposure level of
NomCom volunteers to dynamics that occur in the hallways and between the
formal IETF working group sessions. The net result recognizes the value
of remote participation, moves in the right direction, but does so at a
more moderate pace than you originally propose.
Thoughts?
/John
Disclaimers: My views alone. NomCom '95 Chair (back before any NomCom
procedures existed... :-)