--On Thursday, June 27, 2013 11:50 +0100 Stephen Farrell
<stephen.farrell@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>...
> (*) Like I said, too early to get into it, but the nomcom
> selection process could also require that the voting
> members collectively have been to N meetings, with each
> voting member able to contribute at most M to that total.
> Say with N=30 and M=4 or something, and keep running the
> random selection until you get 10 voting members that
> satisfy that. And if we went there, we could also require
> that nomcom as a group have written a number of RFCs
> perhaps or even have some folks with Jari's h-index>3
> or something. We could have lots of fun with all that:-)
While it risks taking us into a statistical rathole, I think
that notions like the above may be the sort of thing we should
look at.
More broadly, I think we may need to try to figure out what we
really want and need on or from the Nomcom in this decade
(remembering that the system was designed for the rather
different times and IETF composition of the early 1990s and has
been tuned in minor ways but not carefully and openly reviewed
since) and then try to devise criteria to match. It seems to
me that may require looking at separate aspects of things rather
than trying to come up with a single surrogate for everything.
For example, as the above suggests, there are some purposes for
which we probably need to look at overall Nomcom composition
rather that just individual qualifications. Measures to avoid
capture fall into that category. Whether the existing rules are
adequate in that regard or not, they represent on case where we
do look at total composition already.
We might want to look at whether some collections of
participants should be guaranteed representation or weighted
more heavily in the selection calculations (whether voting or
otherwise). That raises the risk that SM identifies of pushing
us toward a Nomcom as a representative body of constituencies
demanding slots, but the advantages seem very strong for Dave
Crocker's proposal to guarantee a certain level of expertise and
some ideas to be sure that the perspective of remote
participants or other underrepresented populations are heard.
The question is how to find the right balance and then reach
sufficient consensus around the justification that we can hold
the line. Not easy, but, at least IMO, probably worth the
investment it would take.
Similarly, I'm pretty sure that "groks the IETF" [1] is an
important and useful criterion. I don't think "3 of last 5" is
a valid exclusive surrogate. Perhaps what is needed is a list
of alternatives, any of which could demonstrate sufficient
familiarity with the culture.
If we separated the "IETF culture" requirement, I still think
that some level of participation, even face to face
participation is important. I don't think that 3 face to face
meetings in 5 is needed for people who already understand the
culture; maybe some combination of remote participation and less
frequent attendance should be equally acceptable.
"Participation" is similar. If we think it is important, then
someone who is actively contributing to mailing lists and
document reviews and who is showing up in meeting Jabber logs
with useful comments is, IMO, a more appropriate Nomcom member
than someone whose company pays registration fees and travel
expenses and who then shows up at meetings and either goes to
the beach or sits in a few WG meetings reading email. I don't
know how to eliminate the second (perhaps others have ideas) but
I can think of ways to identify the former as long as they are
not the exclusive "minimum participation" admission criteria.
I would just hope that we don't fall into the trap of focusing
on what is easy to measure and quantify rather than what is
important and a good measure of what we are looking for. It is
always tempting but, at least IMO, this issue is important
enough to the community in the long term that we ought to be
willing to invest some resources in it. "3 of 5" may represent
an instance of that trap however well-intentioned it was when it
was instituted.
john
[1] I wonder, its introduction into the OED notwithstanding, if
the use of that term marks some of us as being either from a
particular, increasingly-ancient, generation or is more
culturally idiosyncratic than is appropriate.