On 12 Feb 2015 01:30, "John C Klensin" <john@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>
>
> --On Wednesday, February 11, 2015 09:35 -0500 Ted Lemon
> <Ted.Lemon@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > The operation of each nomcom are pretty opaque to those who
> > are not on it. For those who have interacted with a nomcom
> > as candidates, such an impression might exist. It's possible
> > that nomcom liaisons or chairs could speak to this. However,
> > since nomcom proceedings are supposed to be confidential, I
> > don't know how much they could really say. Because these
> > properties of the nomcom are intentional and useful, it does
> > make sense to be particularly careful about how nomcom
> > eligibility is determined and not just trust to peoples' good
> > natures.
>
> +1
>
> And, again, unless we start changing other things, we really
> aren't just talking about the Nomcom. We use Nomcom eligibility
> for some other things where "disenfranchised" is more direct
> than being ineligible to volunteer for a pool from which Nomcom
> members are selected at random.
I hesitate to offer my opinion, because I'm not a proper IETF participant, of course.
I've tended to spend my career working for smaller companies, which simply cannot send that many people to week long meetings around the world three times a year, so despite that being the important part of the IETF, I have had to restrict my participation to minor activities, like engaging on the mailing lists, authoring standards track documents, serving as a working group chair, and so on. Obviously such insignificant contributions mean I cannot possibly understand the implications of being on the NomCom.
Nonetheless, and despite not having any idea of the workings of the IETF, I would think that John is right in his implication that my having a voice in the recall of an area director - whatever one of those is - would seem to have some use.
Dave.