On Wed, Nov 13, 2024 at 03:07:42PM +0000, Salz, Rich wrote:
> > I also don't think that being in NomCom i would like to be rushed into making
> > decisions at the end of a very busy IETF week.
>
> I disagree. Based on what I saw last year everyone was VERY HAPPY with meeting at the end of the IETF week. But we don't need to rely on your memories or my anecdotes, we could just poll the last two NomCom's.
And no NomCom member can compare their experience with those of other NomComs, which
had for example like the ones i was in a totally different experience. So really
difficult to judge. But i think to remember that in my first NomCom which was
in-person, everybody was of course happy after the busy IETF week for everything
that was achieved. It's in the nature of the event.
> > And finally, show me the stats about feedback for different IETF showing how
> > much time was given for each, and then we can talk more. This NomCom has experimented
> > with a new schedule, lets see if/how we can evaluate it!
>
> Are you asking for how much time each NomCom spent on the various positions? I think that would be hard to do without violating the privacy/secrecy of deliberations.
No, just the total number counts of feedbacks across multiple NomComs.
> Your comment "This NomCom has experimented" is wrong. Did you see my previous mail, showing that this was at least the *second* time things were done this way?[1]
Yes, experiment for two IETF. Re-read your email, thanks.
Btw: I don't think video meetings are "doom". I'd argue a lot of people
who are carbon aware would call them the future of collaboration, and
the alternative is what leads to doom ;-) So indeed the question
remains whats the best use of the expensive privilege to meet in person
at most 3 times a year. For the NomCom job, i'd put meeting with
candidates and those providing feedback at a clear prio 1 and internal
NomCom deliberations at prio 2.
Cheers
Toerless
> [1] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/nc6YshXaEwLLuHNQF3uC-76m_2g/
