On Thu, Mar 7, 2013 at 5:23 PM, Spencer Dawkins <spencer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > 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. [MB] Personally, I don't think the .ppts at the plenary should be the only "Nomcom report". It's really hard to tease things out from bullet points. Per my earlier note, I believe the community should expect that the nomcom chair produce a written report in a form similar to what had been done previously - e.g., 2009-2010 and 2008-2009 were the last two I am aware of. That would allow the community to read the report and discuss things rather than make assumptions about bullet points during a live meeting. [/MB] > > 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