On Tuesday, April 26, 2005 09:56:46 AM -0700 Dave Crocker <dhc2@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
I'm certainly silly enough to stand up and say such a thing if I thought it were true and if I thought that I had no other recourse.
An argument made in this thread is that nomcom is ineffective. I was assuming, perhaps incorrectly,that you subscribed to that view.
Most years, I put my name into the nomcom list. I've been on nomcom twice.
I believe in the process, but I also believe it needs significant changing.
The current design of the nomcom process works well when there is a large percentage of the volunteer pool that has extensive experience with both the technology and the IETF process. This makes it likely that a useful portion of the resulting nomcom will be savvy about IETF issues.
Over the years, that percentage has gone down dramatically. This has resulted in recent nomcoms that have very little real IETF process experience among the voting members.
That is indeed a problem. I think a nontrivial part of the solution should be to encourage people who do have that experience to volunteer. One thing I've noticed in organizing various kinds of volunteer activities is that you get better response when you ask or encourage people individually to participate, rather than relying solely on broadcast announcements such as the ones sent to this list and ietf-announce soliciting nomcom volunteers. Of course the announcements are necessary, but they are not sufficient. I think we might get a better mix if people with an interest in a well-run IETF (but who are NOT members of the current managemet) would personally encourage qualfiied, experienced individuals to volunteer for nomcom, as well as doing so themselves.
When there is a pattern of concern, there is a problem that needs fixing.
True. But the problem may not be the one there is concern about. If there is a pattern of concern that the sky is falling, the problem may be a lack of education concerning the nature of the atmosphere. There is far too much tendency to make changes just to be seen to be "doing something", regardless of whether the changes are appropriate or effective.
So, I chose to cite a common rationale used by the nomcom ("there were no
other choices") and suggest that the regular occurrence of that rationale
is sufficient indication of a deep, serious problem that needs
addressing.
This is indeed a problem. The time commitment required for these positions is so large that it is essentially a full-time job. That means the nomcom has to try to find someone who is qualified, is willing to set aside whatever they're working on for 2 years, and has a source of funding for that period of time. Few employers are willing to provide that kind of support, and few individuals (or at least, few individuals qualified to serve in the IETF leadership) can afford to do so on their own.
This is a problem that has been mentioned many times, with many proposed solutions of varying practicality and effectiveness. I'm not going to comment here on any of those proposals, but I do think the problem needs to be addressed. This is not easy, though, and will require some study and significant involvement from present and past holders of those jobs.
That we now are assured of knowing who is doing the veto merely means that we can engage in infinite, unproductive exchanges about their concerns. There is no way to really counter the veto, when it is silly, other than an appeal.
We rarely have appeals, and yet my impression is that most documents which reach the IESG do progress. Maybe you're right, and the reason is that people are so intimidated by the prospect of going up against the management that they manage to address whatever the AD in question is unhappy about. And maybe, in some cases, that's even a good thing.
However, I'm not entirely convinced that the unrestricted veto really exists. Before I can think about solutions to this problem, I need to reexamine the process and convince myself that it really is a problem.
-- Jeff
_______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf