Hi, Alissa,
On Wed, Sep 26, 2018 at 10:21 AM Alissa Cooper <alissa@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Hi Brian,
Thanks for sharing this. It has struck me as strange before that the descriptions of desired expertise are sole-sourced from the roles/bodies themselves. This doesn’t seem strictly required by RFC 7437, though, so I wonder if there might be room to consider changes or improvements to that process in future cycles.
I think this point may be relevant - when I joined the IESG in 2013, we remembered that
- The bodies under review provide descriptions of positions to the Nomcom, but
- The Nomcom uses the provided descriptions as part of determining what the requirements for those positions are, and works to meet those requirements.
That was the last time I remember an IESG talking about that (we were very aware of the 2012-2013 Nomcom's problems in identifying a candidate for TSV that met the description they got from the IESG, which they treated as requirements). But at least one fairly-recent IESG certainly had the expectation that Nomcoms also take input from the community in determining the requirements for positions under review.
I noticed at the time that https://tools..ietf.org/html/bcp10#section-5.12 says that the Nomcom is responsible for assessing the community's consensus on the actual requirements (although I hadn't looked that up in a while).
5.12. Candidate Selection
The nominating committee selects candidates based on its
understanding of the IETF community's consensus of the qualifications
required to fill the open positions.
The intent of this rule is to ensure that the nominating committee
consults with a broad base of the IETF community for input to its
deliberations. In particular, the nominating committee must
determine if the desired expertise for the open positions matches its
understanding of the qualifications desired by the IETF community.
I hope that's helpful. I also hope the community thinks about that to assist future Nomcoms.
Spencer
