|
I will respond only to one part of Jari’s email,
specifically the part about the potential expertise requirement for part of the
nomcom. In the past there have been cases where some specific IESG
members have been perceived by some members of the community as being a
problem. There have also been some cases of perceived friction between areas of
the IETF (the issues which I have been aware of in the past have been fixed as
of several years ago). There are also of course many cases where various problems
(big ones and little ones) in the operation of the IETF have been fixed by
various combinations of IETF participants. I would strongly prefer to avoid
details. It seems to me that having some personal knowledge of at least
some of these cases would be helpful in the task of picking future members of the
IETF leadership. Of course experience in the IETF operation is not a guarantee
of knowledge of (some of) these cases, and knowledge of past cases is not a
guarantee of making perfect selections of candidates in the future (and none of
us are perfect, which implies that there is no chance of selecting perfect
candidates). However, some experience among some of the nomcom voting members
does, in my opinion, significant improve the chances that such past experience
will be taken into consideration in the difficult task of choosing between
multiple good but imperfect choices for our leadership. I also think that having personal knowledge and experience with
how the IETF works is very useful in making choices among the people who have
volunteered for IETF leadership positions. I have never been a voting member of nomcom, but was a liaison
to nomcom once. The particular nomcom to which I was liaison happened to have
some very experienced members, as well as some less experienced members. This was
very helpful IMHO. To me Jari’s argument of wanting to bring new blood into
the process is an argument for why some, and in fact the majority, of nomcom
voting members should be chosen without the additional experience requirement
proposed in the draft IETF leadership document. This if of course precisely
what has been proposed (with only 3 of the 10 voting members requiring this
additional experience). Thus I support the expertise requirement proposed in draft-crocker-ietf-nomcom-process. Ross From: ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx
[mailto:ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Jari Arkko Dave, RECOMMENDATION -- Nomcom Operations Guide Agree RECOMMENDATION -- Nomcom Discussion Management Agree. RECOMMENDATION -- Selective Exclusion I agree in principle that we need this -- for conflict of
interest and for verified breach of rules, for instance. But I fear that
implementation is very difficult and itself prone to generating new problems.
Obviously verification of a breach of rules might be very difficult. Also, you
have not stated the precise rules for conflicts of interest. RECOMMENDATION -- Nomcom Tutorials Agree, though I don't see a big need for keeping them
closed. RECOMMENDATION -- Nomcom Expertise Requirement
* RECOMMENDATION -- Confidentiality
Agreement
* RECOMMENDATION -- Anonymous Input Agree. * RECOMMENDATION -- Liaison Disclosures Agree. RECOMMENDATION -- Interview Monitoring
RECOMMENDATION -- Politicking
Many participants still are deeply involved in the IETF, but
many others are more narrowly focused, with limited IETF involvement. Often
they track only one working group and contribute to none of its discussion,
writing or leadership.
This results in volunteers with potentially less IETF
experience, less understanding of IETF culture and less appreciation of the
specific strengths (and weaknesses) of the IETF approach to standards
development. Instead, they bring their own norms, often including a stronger
sense of loyalty to other groups.
|
_______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf