On 31/08/2015 09:37, John C Klensin wrote: > > > --On Monday, August 31, 2015 09:20 +1200 Brian E Carpenter > <brian.e.carpenter@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >>> This may be too radical but, in the spirit of allowing people >>> to apply discretion, let me success such a process experiment >>> based on the principle that the reason for Nomcom-volunteer >>> qualification rules is to be sure that the selecting members >>> of the Nomcom have a reasonable understanding of the IETF and >>> how it works. For the purpose of this experiment, >>> >>> (1) Anyone meeting the current requirements is automatically >>> qualified to volunteer, just as they are today. >>> >>> (2) Anyone inclined to serve on the Nomcom and willing to meet >>> whatever requirements for attendance and participation during >>> the Nomcom's term apply for the Nomcom of interest may submit >>> his or her name and a very brief statement of qualifications >>> (or, more specifically, why they believe they are qualified) >>> to the Nomcom Chair. The Chair and previous Chair will >>> consider all such applications and may, based on their >>> personal discretion and the "reasonable understanding" >>> principle may be added to the volunteer pool. When the Chair >>> publishes the list of volunteers, those who submitted a >>> statement of qualifications will be included along with their >>> statements and the decision of the Chair and prior Chair. >>> Egregiously silly decisions may be objected to following the >>> usual procedures. >>> >>> That experimental model has three important properties: it >>> involves no new filtering rules, it may allow some people onto >>> the Nomcom whom everyone would agree have an adequate >>> knowledge of the IETF but who do not qualify on meeting >>> counts alone, and it allows us to accumulate information >>> about who actually volunteers and asks for an exception and >>> what their claimed qualifications are. Put differently, it >>> may help us tell whether we have an actual problem or only a >>> theoretical one. >> >> I decided to sleep on it, and the result is that I'm quite >> attracted by this idea. Maybe we should have three >> "gatekeepers" instead of two, but since the random selection >> process makes the final cut, it doesn't seem that personal >> bias could be a major factor anyway. > > Largely because of the randomization, I'm not even sure we need > more than one, but Harald's numbers suggest that there might be > some advantages in either load-sharing or not dumping this on > the sitting Ncmcom Chair. The main reason I suggested two was > to give the sitting Chair flexibility if deciding about an > applicant was uncomfortable because of, e.g., a work > relationship. Yes, fair comment. Maybe even say "any previous Chair" rather than "the previous Chair" to give added flexibility in avoiding conflict of interest. >> We could add a list of *suggested* criteria such as RFC >> authorship, active WG contributions, remote participation. > > Yes, but I'd see those as recommendations to the applicant > (would-be volunteer) to include in a request rather than as > recommendations to those making the decision about what to > consider. If there were less than complete consistency in > evaluations during the experimental period, that might actually > be an advantage. Agreed. We shouldn't overthink the experiment itself. Brian