On Fri, Mar 08, 2013 at 07:10:49PM -0800, Dave Crocker wrote:
> From one Nomcom to the next, the sense of authority and obligation for
> a Nomcom should be consistent. What a Nomcom does with that will (and
> probably should) vary enormously, of course, but they should all work
> from a common understanding of their charter.
I was told it was intentional not to maintain institutional memory
across consecutive nomcoms. Practically speaking there is of course
some institutional memory through chair, prior chair and advisors.
Creating more institutional memory through documentation would of
course provide a better community insight into the process evolution.
Past NomCom reports are a way to provide sugestions for following NomComs,
but so far they look to me mostly like starting off at 0, and not
trying to incrementally "improve". Which means that the work of each
consecutive nomcom to take them into account would increase.
And a 3777bis of course would provide direct community input into the
process evolution.
Cheers
Toerless
> > Also, while the nomcom decides the requirements for
> >specific positions,
>
> Again: that's nice, simple, clear language, but it does not reflect
> what some Nomcoms have believed was their charter.
>
> We should revise the language to make authorities and responsibilities
> far more clear.
>
> As I explained in an earlier posting, I see a reasonable reading of the
> current text as /not/ assigning the authority to the Nomcom. It's fine
> that other read it differently, but that's not the point.
>
> It should require really creative mis-reading to get an interpretation
> that differs from everyone else.
>
> d/
> --
> Dave Crocker
> Brandenburg InternetWorking
> bbiw.net
--
---
Toerless Eckert, eckert@xxxxxxxxx
Cisco NSSTG Systems & Technology Architecture
SDN: Let me play with the network, mommy!