IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [ietf-nomcom] The Nominating Committee Process: Eligibility

"Adrian Farrel" <adrian@olddog.co.uk> Wed, 26 June 2013 17:50 UTC

Return-Path: <adrian@olddog.co.uk>
X-Original-To: ietf-nomcom@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf-nomcom@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6CD4221F9F4C for <ietf-nomcom@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 26 Jun 2013 10:50:52 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.572
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.572 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.027, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id c3CEWvi7uzl6 for <ietf-nomcom@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 26 Jun 2013 10:50:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from asmtp2.iomartmail.com (asmtp2.iomartmail.com [62.128.201.249]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DD8B721F9F94 for <ietf-nomcom@ietf.org>; Wed, 26 Jun 2013 10:50:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from asmtp2.iomartmail.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by asmtp2.iomartmail.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id r5QHoL1b032175; Wed, 26 Jun 2013 18:50:22 +0100
Received: from 950129200 (dsl-sp-81-140-15-32.in-addr.broadbandscope.com [81.140.15.32]) (authenticated bits=0) by asmtp2.iomartmail.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id r5QHoIX2032161 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Wed, 26 Jun 2013 18:50:19 +0100
From: Adrian Farrel <adrian@olddog.co.uk>
To: dcrocker@bbiw.net, 'S Moonesamy' <sm+ietf@elandsys.com>, 'Joel' <joel@stevecrocker.com>
References: <6.2.5.6.2.20130625152043.0d65aad0@elandnews.com> <51CA1A54.7080004@stevecrocker.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20130625153339.0d642d00@resistor.net> <51CA1EA5.8040903@stevecrocker.com> <8C48B86A895913448548E6D15DA7553B92660C@xmb-rcd-x09.cisco.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20130625162728.0d645228@elandnews.com> <8C48B86A895913448548E6D15DA7553B9267AD@xmb-rcd-x09.cisco.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20130625184003.0c545fb0@elandnews.com> <51CA68A2.8080304@joelhalpern.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20130625210953.0deb8c48@resistor.net> <51CAEDED.3070607@stevecrocker.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20130626085011.0c47d550@elandnews.com> <51CB267F.20900@dcrocker.net>
In-Reply-To: <51CB267F.20900@dcrocker.net>
Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2013 18:50:16 +0100
Message-ID: <01d101ce7295$9f726150$de5723f0$@olddog.co.uk>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0
Thread-Index: AQIHNCYcv3FANkfMSjCkJ0gednZK3wLYw0NIAd5/NAICVMC/TgGr4wQrAkMsG88BDcF1/AHKqrdEAieUyEoB1bf6qwFwsAtUAWkuMdkCfOCfdZgdhXNQ
Content-Language: en-gb
Cc: ietf-nomcom@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [ietf-nomcom] The Nominating Committee Process: Eligibility
X-BeenThere: ietf-nomcom@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
Reply-To: adrian@olddog.co.uk
List-Id: Discussions of possible revisions to the NomCom process <ietf-nomcom.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf-nomcom>, <mailto:ietf-nomcom-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf-nomcom>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf-nomcom@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-nomcom-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-nomcom>, <mailto:ietf-nomcom-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2013 17:50:52 -0000

Curiously...

> 6. The proposal that I floated some years ago was to allocate /a
> portion/ of the nomcom membership to a pool of nomcom volunteers who had
> a history of principal contribution.  One can debate the details of
> course, but plausible experience could be RFC author, WG Chair, member
> of IAB, IESG or IAOC.  That's just an exemplar list; I'm not trying to
> propose it as /the/ list.

...actually also reduces the panic about allowing wider NomCom participation.

For example (and deliberately using specific and arguable examples for the sake
of clarity), we could reserve 4 places for people from the list Dave gave as an
example, pick 4 from the current method (possibly excluding those on the current
list), and allow 2 from a wider, less qualified or remote-attender pool.

I find it interesting that the competing tensions of "make sure there is a set
of more experienced people on NomCom" and "widen NomCom to allow broader
participation" might be solved by the same measure.

Adrian

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email