Re: Qualifying for NomCom

["HANSEN, TONY L" <tony@xxxxxxx>]

Looks pretty good.

There's a fourth possible outcome: we've gathered enough information from the experiment that we know what we want to do and don't need to re-run another experiment in order to revise 7437.

Tony

From: ietf <ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx> on behalf of "Murray S. Kucherawy" <superuser@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thursday, April 7, 2016 at 5:21 PM
To: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@xxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, ietf <ietf@xxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: Qualifying for NomCom

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.

   Brian