On Jul 17, 2010, at 8:48 AM, Dave CROCKER wrote: > Folks, > > Nomcom has been an integral part of the IETF for nearly 20 years. > > A number of us have been developing a set of recommendations designed to adapt the Nomcom process to better match current realities of the IETF community. The draft has progressed far enough to call for public consideration. > > Some of the proposal's recommendations require no changes in formal rules. They > can be adopted immediately, possibly by the current Nomcom, should it so choose. > Others require a formal development and approval cycle. > > At: > > <http://www.bbiw.net/recent.html#nomcom2010> > > there is a copy of the Full Proposal, and a Summary which primarily contains just the recommendations. > > ...... > Please feel free to discuss the proposal with any of the authors or folks listed > in the Acknowledgments section, or on this list. I read the summary version of it: seems to me a timely effort in improving our process. it'd be great if we could do this for next nomcom:) One comment, then one new suggestion for you to consider. The comment: I support the idea of having a second 'expertise' pool of volunteers, but I wonder where comes this suggestion of selecting *3* members from this pool. A few random questions: - Do we know what is this number for the last several NOMCOMs? - Assuming ISOC keeps the records of NOMCOM volunteers over time: what percentage of volunteers that would fall into this second pool? - Did this number "3" come from a rough expectation on how many NOMCOM members should have this "direct involvement in the process of IETF leadership (IAB/IESG/WG chair)? e.g. say you expect total 5 people with experience, you pick 3 from 2nd pool first, then expect 2 more from the bigger pool ... Personally I feel (1) there should be a expected low threshold of NOMCOM member with this direct IETF leadership experience, and (2)this threshold should be higher than 3. Now the suggestion: Since some of the suggested enhancements would require modifications to 3777, I'd like to bring up another thought I've had for a long time: the current NOMCOM eligibility requirement (3 of the last 5 IETF meetings) seems a bit low, I feel that a longer experience with IETF process than 2 years (as minimum) requirement could help NOMCOM's decision process, as IETF is already over 24 years old now with a pretty long and rich history. Take into account the fact that many people probably do not attend all IETF meetings, as a strawman for a longer IETF experience, what about attending 5 of the last 8 or 10 meetings? that's all for now, and thanks to all for doing this important work! Lixia _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf