-------------- Original message ---------------------- From: John C Klensin <john-ietf@xxxxxxx> > > > --On Tuesday, 31 July, 2007 01:23 -0400 Jeffrey Altman > <jaltman@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > The notion that NomCom eligibility should be determined by > > those who attend meetings just doesn't make a lot of sense for > > an organization that prides itself on only making consensus > > decisions on mailing lists. ... > I wouldn't go so far as "doesn't make a lot of sense", although > I agree that it is problematic. The difficulty has been, in > part, that no one has proposed a better system and, in part, > because of an assumption that the meeting-attendees are much > more likely to be in touch with personality, skills, and > behavior patterns than those who particular purely by mailing > list. I was one of the folks who invented the noncom eligibility scheme way back when. the nomcom's job is evaluating people and their suitability for a particular job. our view at the time, and my view still, was that the best way to accomplish that task is to actually see that person in action -- to see how they conduct themselves in meetings, how they deal with "issues", how they think on their feet, and so on. one might argue that looking at the email record would suffice -- but on the internet, no one knows if you're a dog or not... this does skew the candidate pools for both the nomcom and iab/iesg positions to people who attend meetings. we knew that then. we felt that it was a relatively minor downside. and besides, the meetings _are_ an important part of the ietf/etc... > Of course, the latter assumption becomes more dubious as > the community gets larger and the Nomcom members know > proportionately fewer people and need to rely more on what they > can learn from interviews and questionnaires than on their > personal knowledge and experience. while true, it is a significant problem if one wishes the nomcom to find The One Best person for a job. if one is willing to accept a person who is "good enough", then evaluating a smaller percentage of a larger pool is probably ok. the scheme is not perfect -- but perfection was not the goal. workability and simplicity were. frank kastenholz _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf