ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Qualifying for NomCom

2016-04-07 15:58:42
I liked the suggestion of a process experiment where the Nomcom chair
could accept a volunteer that did not qualify under the current rules,
based on his/her own judgment, possibly with a challenge period (we
already have a challenge period in the procedure).

Once we have a few tens of examples of people who want to serve and the
community doesn't mind being allowed to serve, we can start seeing if we
can find rules that cover them.

Harald

On 04/07/2016 08:11 PM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
Yes, this again.

I've refreshed RFC7437bis in the datatracker since we're effectively
between active NomCom periods, so now's a good time to take another
look at this.

For those that didn't follow along last time, the big showstopper for
this draft as I have it now had to do with updating the criteria for
qualifying to serve on the NomCom.  The current draft says:

(1) To qualify, one must have attended three of the last five
in-person meetings, as it's been for a long time now.

(2) This is regularly criticized as selecting for attendees with the
support and budget to travel to the meetings, and possibly excludes
people who make substantial or numerous IETF contributions but
participate remotely more than in person.

We made previous attempts on this list to come up with new criteria
given (2) above, but weren't successful at coming to consensus, so I
took them back out, leaving the text that's there now.  The previous
thread:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/QHwG1KrQDBK9u0wsfALjPSre-pw

I'd like to take another run at this before the next NomCom really
gets going.  One suggestion I was given here at IETF 95 is to come up
with some system that's worth trying, and not over-engineer it to
protect against gaming or other abuses until such time as such abuse
is evident.  It might, for example, be sufficient defense to empower
the NomCom Chair or the IETF Chair (or both) with a "panic button",
making them able to declare that selection criteria will fall back to
what we have now if it looks like the proposed new qualification
system is likely to yield an inappropriate set of selecting NomCom
members.

Comments welcome.

-MSK


-- 
Surveillance is pervasive. Go Dark.

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