On 8/1/05 at 10:50 AM +0200, Scott W Brim wrote:
It's one thing to give the NomCom guidelines, it's another to constrict them.
The document gives them guidelines and does not constrict them. Where is the problem?
The document expresses a preference (and the community needs to be heard on whether they agree with that preference) that after 1-term, the NomCom should default to reappoint good folks (because it's worth having folks with 1 term of experience stay on) and after 2 terms should default to not reappoint (in order to get some new folks experience and get the experience folks back on the ground and into other non-IESG work). I personally would like to see more people get experience on the IESG and get some IESG brain cells back into the community before they're completely burned out, so I kind of like the proposal. But I don't see where you're having a problem.
The NomCom should be defended strongly against people who don't like the way things are going in IETF management.
I cannot tell you how much I disagree with that statement. The NomCom should hear the people who don't like the way things are going in IETF management *loud and clear*. The current IETF management is represented with liaisons on the NomCom, so the NomCom gets plenty of input from folks participating in "the way things are going in IETF management". And overall, it's *much* easier for the NomCom (and the community) to pat everyone on the head and say "You're doing a fine job." When someone gets up the gumption to complain about the leadership, that should get serious consideration. Sometimes people complaining are just being complainers. But I see no reason to "defend" the NomCom against complainers in general.
If you believe that competency in the job is just one criterion, and that potential competency should be considered important ... tell the NomCom.
If there is community consensus that there are such criteria, communicating them in a document seems quite reasonable (and more efficient than having NomCom solicit individuals).
Forcing *all* IESG or IAB members out, even if doing so hurts the IETF and the Internet, to avoid embarrassment of someone who shouldn't be there is just too "politically correct".
Scott, what in the draft would force this case? This is just FUD mongering. pr -- Pete Resnick <http://www.qualcomm.com/~presnick/> QUALCOMM Incorporated _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf