On 23 Aug 2022, at 14:06, Salz, Rich wrote:
- I'm assuming that I missed some discussions, but assuming that we end up changing the process **for future nomcoms**, why wouldn't we just select an additional 0.5*NOMCOM backup members, according to the normal rules, including no more than N from a company, etc.
This is what everyone did once we started using RFC 3797. It’s what RFC 3797 itself suggests.
Some are concerned about the case when “Rich from Akamai” in the initial list stepping down so that “Kyle from Akamai” could get picked as the replacement. Disqualifying “Kyle from Akamai” as the first alternate doesn’t seem right if “Rich from Akamai” does step down. Either way, the system can be gamed. Whether the holes are important enough to worry about is for the IETF community to decide.
Yeah, I'd even go one step further: I'd prefer a system where anyone's decision about whether to say "I can't do it" isn't affected by who is next on the list. If don't want the thought to come to my mind, "Oh, Warren got picked for this NomCom, and he's really mean and I'm a wimp and he'll convince everyone to pick people I don't like, but I know Rich (who is number 11 on the list) will stand up to him and get everyone to pick better people, therefore I'll just say that I can't do it." (The company thing can play in too, and I can think of additional nefarious attempts to game the system.) As Phil has said, the less cases where people can make choices that affect the outcome, the better.
pr
--
Pete Resnick https://www.episteme.net/
All connections to the world are tenuous at best
