On Jun 27, 2013, at 5:50 AM, S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Hello, > > RFC 3777 specifies the process by which members of the Internet Architecture Board, Internet Engineering Steering Group and IETF Administrative Oversight Committee are selected, confirmed, and recalled. > > draft-moonesamy-nomcom-eligibility proposes an update RFC 3777 to allow remote contributors to the IETF Standards Process to be eligible to serve on NomCom and sign a Recall petition ( http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-moonesamy-nomcom-eligibility-00 ). > > Could you please read the draft and comment? SM - I have read the draft, and believe that it moves the qualification to serve on the NomCom in the right direction. Long-term, it would be ideal if remote IETF participation was equivalent (both as an experience and as a NomCom qualification) to in-person IETF participation. Noting agreement in the direction, the reality of remote participation today is somewhat different. In recent years, I have been a frequent remote participant and occasional on-site participant, and while it is possible to effectively contribute to working group efforts remotely, such success is predicated on knowing quite a bit about IETF processes and workflow, and it not clear to me that a remote participant picks up the necessary background at anywhere near the same rate as on-site participants. As a result, I am concerned that the proposed language in draft wouldn't necessarily provide for experienced IETF participants in the NomCom, and/or those who have well-informed insight into what makes for good IAB/IESG/IAOC members. Note also that the proposed language also increases the possibility of "capture" (i.e. the ability of an single organization to inappropriately skew the outcome of the process) in that a relatively large pool of remote participants could quickly be made NomCom-eligible by having them attend the very next IETF meeting, and then all volunteered to serve on the NomCom. While this is not a particularly likely course for a party not happy with the IETF, it is an aspect to be considered in the NomCom processes. With an view towards finding a middle ground, would it be possible to change your proposed text from: "Members of the IETF community must have attended at least 3 of last 5 IETF meetings remotely or in person including at least 1 of the 5 last IETF meetings in person in order to volunteer." to this: "Members of the IETF community must have attended at least 3 of last 5 IETF meetings remotely or in person including at least _2_ of the 5 last IETF meetings in person in order to volunteer." The change from 1 to 2 meetings being in-person significantly reduces the potential risk of capture while also increasing the exposure level of NomCom volunteers to dynamics that occur in the hallways and between the formal IETF working group sessions. The net result recognizes the value of remote participation, moves in the right direction, but does so at a more moderate pace than you originally propose. Thoughts? /John Disclaimers: My views alone. NomCom '95 Chair (back before any NomCom procedures existed... :-)