>> Without changing the /authority/ of the AD to make appointments, >> what about having the AD circulate a list of candidates to the >> pre-wg mailing list and solicit comments. > > I absolutely love this idea, and I think it would be a disaster. > There's a reason why nomcom comments are not made public. And as an > AD, I can tell you that there are situations I can imagine (which > haven't yet come up) where I would absolutely _not_ want to follow the > preference of the community. You could argue that such a situation is > dysfunctional and the working group ought not to be formed, and you > might be right, but I think you need to iterate on this idea a few > times before we get to where it's something that could actually be > done... :) <aol> i was looking for something i wrote a year++ ago describing the differences between ietf nomination and chair appointment practices and those of the rirs, icann, nanog, etc. imiho, judging by results, the ietf's is vastly superior. the others are essentially beauty contests which deliver a flat distribution from self-aggrandizing idiocy to the occasional star. i don't think we can afford that. while i suspect we could do things to improve things (e.g. the iesg should not appoint bof chairs who are chosen to kill the bof), i would ask that we be very careful screwing with a system which, however arcane, produces results which are distinctly better than the others we have. randy