--On Thursday, October 09, 2014 13:53 -0400 Michael StJohns <mstjohns@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > However, I'm concerned that we are proposing to not follow our > own rules. > > The first issue is that once the IETF ExecDir passes on the > vacancies to the Nomcom, there is no provision for the Nomcom > not to fill those vacancies, nor is there provision for that >... Mike, I think we have a little bit of a philosophical disagreement that has a lot to do with what the IETF is about and much less to do with this particular case. I spent many years of my life in assorted positions, often oversight or management, in standards bodies in which the main (or only) criterion for almost anything --including standards approval and leadership appointment-- was that rigid procedures were followed to the letter. To a considerable extent, technical quality, implementability, relevance to anything actual users or any likely producer of implementations actually cared about, and so on were secondary to careful step-by-step procedure following if they counted at all. The IETF, by contrast, tended to focus on identifying the right things to do and getting them done. That meant broad review, rough consensus, and technical quality of standards and designing our procedures so that, as long as things remained open, transparent, and consistent with rough consensus, careful thinking and good sense would trump arguments for rigid adherence to narrow interpretations of the rules. Where the Internet is concerned, in the talk that was arguably part of the origin of the IETF's current structural and procedural model, Marshall Rose memorably described where the model of rigid rules and primacy of procedures over good judgment led with the phrase "road kill on the information superhighway". For the specifics of this issue, I think Michael Richardson's interpretation of what the Nomcom can do and his response --whether you agree or not -- shows that we have not yet run out of flexibility in thinking through issues and trying to put "find the right solution" first. I can't add much to that, other than to applaud the direction it seems to represent regardless of what is done with this particular position. The more general situation is why, in recent years, I've consistently opposed efforts to turn guidelines into rules and to substitute ever more detailed rules for requirements to think and apply good sense. It may well be that, if and as the IETF participant profile shifts toward more professional standardizers and folks whose interests and participation are limited to a single topic and it becomes harder for anyone who lacks significant organizational or corporate support to serve on the IESG or IAB, we will need to become more like those other bodies and, in particular, rely more on formal rules and checking for conformance to procedures rather than good sense and technical judgments supported, where possible, by "running code". IMO, that would be an unfortunate outcome that would ultimately lead to elimination of the things that have made the IETF both special and effective. YMMD, of course. best, john