Ross Callon <rcallon@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > 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. I would be amazed if it were otherwise; in fact I'd be surprised if you could name a NomCom where no such case arose... > 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). IMHO, better tools have helped there... > 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. A NomCom probably _can't_ avoid learning 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. I don't think that follows. Between any two individuals there _will_ be sources of friction. The NomCom will face an impossible task if they try to analyze all combinations for friction. They should instead seek to learn how candidates _deal_with_ friction. > 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). All true... > However, some experience among some of the nomcom voting members does, > in my opinion, significantly 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. But which _particular_ experience sets will help? I don't think we can know that. And I've seen many particular experience-sets which instead lead to entrenched beliefs as to how the IESG (e.g.) should operate. Having two such entrenched beliefs on the NomCom is unlikely to help... :^( > 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. Following that to its logical conclusion, only IESG members know enough to pick their successors. We have soundly rejected that idea. > 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. You know better than I, but I certainly tend to agree... > 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. Which, of course, is exactly where we are today... The devil is in the details here. How can we impose additional experience requirements on some NomCom members without implying that we want their opinions to be considered "better"? -- John Leslie <john@xxxxxxx> _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf