RE: NomCom selection Fwd: Notification for draft-eastlake-rfc3797bis-00.txt

["Rob Wilton \(rwilton\)" <rwilton=40cisco.com@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Behcet,

 

I think that both points that Mary and Donald have raised are valid:

• Making this a 2-year term is likely to make it harder to find volunteers.  It many cases, it is necessary to persuade both the individual and perhaps their management that the time investment is worthwhile (unless they are doing the role at their own cost).  My instinct is that (rightly or wrongly) the external value judgement between different IETF roles is probably quite different.
• To Donald’s point, I agree that having a break between the same Nomcom chair is reasonable and sensible to avoid too much continuous influence over the selection process by one person.  I’m not sure that the break must be as long as 10 years, since I don’t think that we want to reduce the size of the potential Nomcom chair pool too much.  I’m also not sure that this must be a hard rule, or just guidance, e.g., what happens in the case that there are no other volunteers.

 

Regards,

Rob

 

 

From: Behcet Sarikaya <sarikaya2012@xxxxxxxxx>
Sent: 01 May 2023 16:34
To: Donald Eastlake <d3e3e3@xxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Mary B <mary.h.barnes@xxxxxxxxx>; Salz, Rich <rsalz@xxxxxxxxxx>; ietf@xxxxxxxx; Rob Wilton (rwilton) <rwilton@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: NomCom selection Fwd: Notification for draft-eastlake-rfc3797bis-00.txt

 

To Mary: let's say  someone did it well and happy to do it again, why not allow this person?

To Donald: Like ADs get a two year term, so 2 year term is not that uncommon in IETF.

 

Why not Nomcom chair?

 

Behcet

 

 

 

On Fri, Apr 28, 2023 at 12:28 PM Donald Eastlake <d3e3e3@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

I agree with Mary.

 

Also, with selection of most positions being for a 2 year term, you do not want the same person having been Chair of the nomcoms that controlled the selection of all of the members of the IESG/IAB/etc. In fact, I think it would be reasonable to prohibit someone from ever serving more than once as nomcom Chair -- this has never occurred -- in any case they certainly shouldn't be able to serve as nomcom Chair again until some reasonably large number of years have passed, like 10 years or more.

Thanks,
Donald
===============================
 Donald E. Eastlake 3rd   +1-508-333-2270 (cell)
 2386 Panoramic Circle, Apopka, FL 32703 USA
 d3e3e3@xxxxxxxxx

 

 

On Fri, Apr 28, 2023 at 1:18 PM Mary B <mary.h.barnes@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

I disagree with this.  The Nomcom chair job is intensive - I worked 7 days a week from Sept-Dec as Nomcom chair and doing a regular job.  I think that also makes it much harder to find a chair and that job is already challenging.   The model right now has the past year's chair as a participant to provide continuity.  I think the community benefits from having a new chair every year.   

 

Regards,

Mary.

 

On Fri, Apr 28, 2023 at 11:49 AM Behcet Sarikaya <sarikaya2012@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Hi all,

Since we are in the process of modifying the "nomcom law", I suggest that we also change the rule of appointing a new nomcom chair every year, instead make it possible for someone to do it for two years?

 

Behcet

 

On Wed, Apr 26, 2023 at 12:50 PM Salz, Rich <rsalz=40akamai.com@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Does anyone disagree with the following?
- 8713 will not be updated in time to take effect for this NomCom's selection process.
- The text of 8713 specifies a process that, if followed, means a delay of at least one week, and perhaps at least two weeks.

"Picking next one the list" is the process recommended by at least the last half-dozen NomCom chairs, and followed by at least one of them (me); perhaps more than one. Yes, this can be gamed.  So what; security is about trade-offs and saving time is more important for now.

Some folks might want to review the errata at https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/rfc8713. I have no idea where discussions of that should happen.

It wasn't clear to me if Rob was proposing an interpretation of 8713, or providing input to a revision.

I had to disqualify one potential volunteer. They said yes, and then I was unable to interact with them for the next three days (it was the weekend).  One day is not enough. And weekends aren't the same globally, once you allow for timezones or countries that observe the classic Sabbath.