On 2/11/2015 6:26 AM, Loa Andersson wrote:
Ensure that at least a portion of the Nomcom has contributed in
formal, documented way. AD, Chair, author.. whatever set of activities
we feel makes it likely they will have clue.
I guess I'm old-time minded here, what is wrong with 3 meetings out
of 5, and if you want co-authored document.
That's a version of what I'm suggesting. And I think that requiring
some percentage of nomcom to have that qualification would be better
than our current requirement. (I'm not commenting on the debate about
registration numerics. I think it has merit and I think good points are
being made, but don't have a strong opinion about it.)
However I think it would be better still to count other IETF roles too.
In reality, authors often have little direct contact with the processes
that Nomcom selects people to perform. On the other hand, most (all?)
folk who do have that direct experience with IETF management processes
have also been authors. (That is, I'm suspecting that the single, simple
criterion you cite might really be sufficient as a superior
clue-correlate...)
As for Loa's question about why someone who hasn't done real IETF work
would want to volunteer, the answer is politics and/or ego. They or
their company might want to hold sway over nomcom or the person might
just want to add this to their resume.
With due respect - I don't think this is how it work, do we have any
running code?
Unfortunately, yes. One or more occurrences. Perceived clearly by a
variety of IETF management folk. But alas, no, it can't be discussed in
public.
Happily, this sort of thing is rare. But a position on Nomcom is
disproportionately high leverage and, therefore, needs meaningful
protection against problematic membership, IMO.
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net