Re: Qualifying for NomCom

Harald Alvestrand <harald@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> · Thu, 7 Apr 2016 23:57:16 +0200



    On 04/07/2016 11:21 PM, Murray S.
      Kucherawy wrote:

    
      How's this look for starters?

        
        http://blackops.org/~msk/draft-kucherawy-nomcom-procexp.txt

      
        On Thu, Apr 7, 2016 at 6:09 PM, Brian E
          Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@xxxxxxxxx>
          wrote:

          On
            08/04/2016 08:52, Michael Richardson wrote:

            ...

            >     > On the other hand, I realize
              now that previous thread went on longer

              >     > than I remembered, and there was a proposal
              that we (I, probably)

              >     > construct an RFC3933-style process
              experiment and let that run for a

              >     > while. If it works well, we can codify it by
              adding it to RFC7437bis.

              >     > So I'll do that. If anyone wants to
              volunteer to collaborate on it,

              >     > please contact me directly.

              >

              > Yes, let's do that!

              >

              > It would awesome if we could say definitely that the
              new rules

              > contribute to more volunteers before we actually use
              them.

              
            That's not quite how RFC3933 works. You'd *actually*
            run the experimental

            procedure for (say) one cycle, with automatic reversion to
            RFC7437 unless

            RFC7437bis was approved. I think it's a good idea. A
            one-year experiment

            affects ~half the IESG and IAB seats so is highly unlikely
            to lead to

            disaster.

          
    Two suggestions:

    
    - Scope objections and aborts to the time between the announcement
    of the final list of volunteers and the selection of the comittee.
    This closes the loophole that the powers-that-be can look at the
    selected nomcom, say "we don't like this group", and force a
    re-selection by spuriously objecting.

    
    - The timing says "This experiment is defined to last for one year,
    starting and ending with the constitution of the next NomCom after
    this document is approved and published." - this is neither
    determinate nor grammatical, I think - in particular, it starts and
    ends at the same time.

    
    I suggest "This experiment is defined to start with the first call
    for volunteers after IESG approval of this document, and ends with
    the selection of the nomcom from that volunteer pool. Evaluation of
    the experiment will be done after the selection process of the
    formed nomcom completes."

    
    Otherwise - go for it!

    
                   Brian

                
    -- 
Surveillance is pervasive. Go Dark.