![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Having been on several nomcoms, served as chair, and as a liaison/advisor, I fully agree with Fred. I think we see a thread such as this (i.e., re: confidentiality of nomcom feedback, willing nominees, non-willing nominees, who's re-upping, who's not, etc..) pretty much every year about this time.
With a process just barely loose enough to work without imploding, and the group of volunteers collectively known as the nomcom most always trying to do what they believe to be the <right> thing for the community - I believe this to be the intention and usual result.
Of course, there's nothing unique with this and the nomcom within the IETF, as it's equally applicable to any of the IETF leadership positions, from WG chairs and certainly I* folk. The often heedless manner in which their intentions, motivations and ethics are questioned unhesitatingly could certainly employ a bit more forethought.
All these processes and structures certainly need to be continually evaluated and evolved, and I'm pleased some folks have ample cycles with which to devote such attention, but there are certainly enough other things to busy my idle hands.
If not annoyed, I remain amazed at such repetitive conjecture from afar...
-danny
_______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf at ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Note Well: Messages sent to this mailing list are the opinions of the senders and do not imply endorsement by the IETF.