On 3/7/2013 5:01 PM, Ted Hardie wrote:
On Thu, Mar 7, 2013 at 1:56 PM, Joel M. Halpern <jmh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
One of the interesting things is that the nomcom does not in practice have a
way to tell the community exactly what it decided the job requirements are.
Why is the Nomcom report not a mechanism to do this?
Ted,
I just sent Joel a note about this privately, but since you mention it ...
I think part of the reason may be that if there's a gap between the job
description that the willing nominees saw before they said they were
willing to be considered and the job description that the Nomcom
actually used, you might not end up with the same willing nominees in
both cases. (*)
So the Nomcom report at the first IETF meeting of the year would be a
good place to talk about what got changed, but too late for nominees who
were a better match for the Nomcom's description than the initial
description to agree to be considered.
Thanks,
Spencer (**)
(*) Ideally, you end up with better willing nominees if they know the
description Nomcom will be using
(**) I've been on one Nomcom as IAB liaison, and never as a voting member