Spencer,
I haven't fully analyzed the proposal yet, so I will refrain from
substantive comment.
However, in answer to your question, I'm sure the answer is no,
because the two-stage process suggested in the draft will add a
significant number of weeks to the process, and we would almost
certainly have to start about two months earlier. I haven't done
a detailed analysis of the timeline, but I'm pretty sure we
couldn't make it this year. And that's assuming we reached consensus
very rapidly.
Brian
Spencer Dawkins wrote:
This draft (available at
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-klensin-nomcom-term-00.txt)
does a reasonable job of balancing between current-generation leadership
continuity and next-generation leadership development.
I have previously expressed the opinion that an absolute prohibition on
four terms of continuous service would be preferable, but the
flexibility granted to NOMCOM in this proposal is acceptable (and I
could be wrong).
The current IETF is a better place because of several I* members who
have returned to the community - they are providing strong technical
leadership, without dots on badges. Honorable retirement after honorable
service on IESG or IAB is not a bad thing.
If I read RFC 3777 correctly, we will be assembling the next NOMCOM very
soon ("at least two months before the Third IETF"). So, I'm wondering...
If there is community consensus that this draft proposes something
reasonable, would we give the draft to the incoming NOMCOM as part of
their instructions and perform a BCP 93 process experiment?
Spencer
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf