--On Friday, January 09, 2009 11:26 -0500 Scott Brim
<swb@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> Part of the reason for the current requirements is exactly
>> what I think you are suggesting -- to raise the odds that
>> Nomcom members will actually know the candidates and have had
>> the opportunity to see them in action in some roles.
>
> But also that nomcom members have some clue to what the life
> of an IAB/IESG member is like. I don't see how you can
> possibly understand that without seeing it all in action at a
> face-to-face meeting.
At the risk of repeating Spencer's comment in more concrete
terms, if we believe "getting a [realistic] clue to what the
life of an IAB/IESG member is like", then the Nomcom should be
restricted to people who have had access to the internal
meetings and interactions of those bodies, i.e., former IESG or
IAB members, possibly IESG scribe and IAB ExecDirs, and maybe
some present or former WG Chairs. The typical participant in
the community sees those people only in occasional comments to
WGs, staged performances during the plenaries, and in their
written (and tracker-logged) responses to documents. The last
of these is, of course, equally accessible to those who attend
meetings and those who do not. The comments to WGs show up on
mailing lists and in Jabber logs, which means that the only
thing the typical IETF participant who attends meetings has
access to that those who do not attend don't is the plenary
performances. I have difficulty believing that those give any
great insight into "their life as IAB/IESG members".
I dislike that situation for many reasons. However, I think it
is consistent with my main point, which is that Eliot's concern
may come together with other evolutionary factors in the IETF to
justify reexamining the assumptions between the meeting
attendance requirement, not just trying to tweak it.
john
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf