On Sun, Oct 22, 2006 at 12:40:03PM -0400, John C Klensin wrote: > Suppose potential candidates exist in the community who believe > that they have ideas that would significantly rearrange the > workload --within the bounds established by existing, > documented, procedures-- so as to make the community less > dependent on two-year commitments of huge blocks of time from a > small number of individuals and, consequently, see the time > commitment required by the job differently. I am expressing the > hope that such people would apply for the positions, and > initiate a dialogue with the Nomcom about them, without being > unreasonably deterred by incumbent job descriptions and time > estimates. I also hope that the Nomcom would take such > candidacies seriously and would evaluate the hypotheses about > different ways to structure the roles (again, within the bounds > identified in consensus documents) in a careful and serious way, > rather than checking off "not willing to commit as much time as > the descriptions claim is necessary". Well, hopefully the Nomcom would have the discussion with those potential IESG members around the topic "What if you are wrong and your ideas don't pan out and it really does take as much time as past history has suggested?" I would also argue that ideas about how to significantly rearrange the workload are things shouldn't be happening as part of the nomcom process, but part of an open discussion so that all stakeholders have a chance to comment. Those ideas should be applicable regardless of who the candidate might be for a particular position, right? - Ted _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf