On 16/11/2024 9.34 pm, Salz, Rich wrote: >> 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. > > Except that the voting volunteers have often served on NomCom's before. And the liaisons, too. > > But yes, I agree, it will be difficult to judge. > > Maybe it is helpful to update the guidelines? A proposal was made to extend the term to two years: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-rsalz-gih-nomcom-2years/ My expectation is that one year is actually reasonable. However, the main procedures to be followed should be specified in an RFC. Details of when to have meetings, and when to accept community feedback by should be left to the NomCom itself as this gives it flexibility to accommodate the members. There are some deadlines for when the NomCom should have its work done by, and these should be in the guidelines. How the voting is done should probably be specified, as well as guidelines for what SHOULD be important considerations in filling positions. RFC2119 gives very precise details for how NomCom members are chosen. RFC8713 is much more vague about how the NomCom should actually conduct its work - there is much research into how organizations can effectively make decisions which can feed into such a document to enable the NomCom to work more effectively.. The RFC could be something that is updated by each NomCom, or each NomCom could write an experience report to pass on what they believe is useful knowledge for future NomComs to have.
