I wonder if we should not have a specialist group that run the selection process on behalf of the chair so that the new chair does not need to learn the details. As the process is fully open, and can be overseen by the chair I see no democratic risk. Once the selection is made the specialist withdraw for 12 months. The “team" could be volunteers, staff or a lawyer. Stewart > On 11 Aug 2022, at 19:01, Salz, Rich <rsalz=40akamai.com@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> I think it's actually simpler than that. If any of those 7 objected to > their exclusion, then I think we'd probably have to rerun the process. > It's not so much demographics as it is fairness. > > At this point, I believe that https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8713.html#name-announcement-of-selection-r is the first step. Someone has to send me an email saying that they challenge all the nominees because the volunteer pool was wrong. I have 48 hours to reply. I promise to reply "I disagree" as soon as I see the mail so that if they wish to escalate, per https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8713.html#name-dispute-resolution-process as soon as possible to avoid further delays. > >> ps - we've had problems with the selection process the last 3(?) times. > > It would be good to have a single unified listing of what those problems were. If you want to post them, great, or email me and I will add it to my "nomcom diary." This thread is an attempt to identify one such problem, and explain that it is being addressed. > >> In particular, the > current model allows for "Hmm... if I refuse to serve then X is next on > the list and they would mostly vote like me" types of calculation on the > part of selectees. > > That's different from a mistake. You are describing someone gaming the system, and this was an operational mistake. I think it is important to keep the two separate as the latter is more easily addressed while the former would probably require a new RFC. > > -Rich Salz, 2022 NomCom chair > >
