At 12:10 PM 9/5/2006, Keith Moore wrote:
> What the liaisons all have in common is that they are part of the > existing IETF management structure. The potential for this producing a > process that tends to cater to the established structure, rather than > explore alternatives, seems rather straightforward, no matter how > diligent everyone is. That is, this seems an inherent bias. Indeed, but is it an inherently bad bias? Surely continuity is worth something, at least in some situations? The NOMCOM is free to ignore input from the liasons if it decides that there is more benefit to the community from disrupting the management structure than from catering to it.
Liaisons' role in the nomcom has been interesting from my first hand observation. Some of them provide input when asked, occasionally provide "personal" advice labeling it as such, and communicate "official" input from the folks who appointed them. That is the level of involvement I appreciate. However, there are some folks who do more than that. Perhaps it is done with good intentions and sometimes that level of input is in fact appreciated by nomcom members who are looking for more input than they are getting (yes, that is sometimes the case. It is hard to select when you are unfamiliar with the area and the deadlines are looming to do any amount of research). However, my guess would be that in the long run activist liaisons undermine the nomcom process. There is language in the current RFCs, but it can use some tightening. If others feel that way, let's work on a draft offline.
The other suggestion/concern raised recently was about the number of folks with one affiliation. Perhaps, and especially if liaisons are expected to be *even* active (not necessarily activist) in their roles on nomcom, we should consider non-voting members in counting the number of folks with one affiliation.
thanks, Lakshminath
> A straightforward means of obtaining more diverse input is to make > candiates' names public. This permits the rest of the community to > decide whether to comment, rather than limiting Nomcom input to those > who the Nomcom chooses to solicit. (No, this is not a new idea.) On balance, I think it would be preferable to make candidates' names public as long as their consent is obtained before doing so. Better yet might be to expect all willing candidates to publicly announce their willingness to serve if chosen. That would have several positive effects - it would make the community aware of the candidate slate, it would invite people to provide input to NOMCOM about those candidates, it would make the community aware of areas in which viable candidates were in short supply. Yes it could be embarassing to those not chosen, but if you're going to be on IESG you'll have to deal with far worse than that. (being on IAB doesn't seem quite so bad, but I've never actually done it.) Keith _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf