On 12 Feb 2015 01:30, "John C Klensin" <john(_at_)jck(_dot_)com> wrote:
--On Wednesday, February 11, 2015 09:35 -0500 Ted Lemon
<Ted(_dot_)Lemon(_at_)nominum(_dot_)com> wrote:
The operation of each nomcom are pretty opaque to those who
are not on it. For those who have interacted with a nomcom
as candidates, such an impression might exist. It's possible
that nomcom liaisons or chairs could speak to this. However,
since nomcom proceedings are supposed to be confidential, I
don't know how much they could really say. Because these
properties of the nomcom are intentional and useful, it does
make sense to be particularly careful about how nomcom
eligibility is determined and not just trust to peoples' good
natures.
+1
And, again, unless we start changing other things, we really
aren't just talking about the Nomcom. We use Nomcom eligibility
for some other things where "disenfranchised" is more direct
than being ineligible to volunteer for a pool from which Nomcom
members are selected at random.
I hesitate to offer my opinion, because I'm not a proper IETF participant,
of course.
I've tended to spend my career working for smaller companies, which simply
cannot send that many people to week long meetings around the world three
times a year, so despite that being the important part of the IETF, I have
had to restrict my participation to minor activities, like engaging on the
mailing lists, authoring standards track documents, serving as a working
group chair, and so on. Obviously such insignificant contributions mean I
cannot possibly understand the implications of being on the NomCom.
Nonetheless, and despite not having any idea of the workings of the IETF, I
would think that John is right in his implication that my having a voice in
the recall of an area director - whatever one of those is - would seem to
have some use.
Dave.