|
On 4/19/2019 11:32 AM, Spencer Dawkins
at IETF wrote:
I'm actually enjoying this more than I should
be ...
*Hah!*
I should have also mentioned that changes to the Nomcom process
do not and should not require participation or agreement by those
being appointed by the Nomcom process nor do their voices weigh
heavier on the process than any other IETF participant. E.g.
While having an AD sponsor this is fine, this is one of those
documents that really needs to be a community consensus document
rather than an IESG approved document. (If you don't understand
what I mean by this, ask an old timer about Kobe over beers some
time).
Mike
On 4/18/2019 12:31 PM,
Alissa Cooper wrote:
> Hi Adrian,
>
>> On Apr 17, 2019, at 11:10 AM, Adrian Farrel <adrian@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
>>
>> Thanks for this email, Alissa. It's interesting.
I presume it means that the IESG is unanimous, because it
only takes one AD to AD sponsor a draft.
> I asked the IESG. I did not get responses from
everyone, but of the people who did respond none of them
volunteered to AD-sponsor.
In the past, what's worked for dealing with small things
is the
formation of a design team to look at the problem and
figure out if
there's a document or two to be had. Perhaps that's a
better approach
than WG forming BOFs or even trying to find a sponsor for
this one
little piece of the problem?
And the reason Mike knows this, is that he (and
something like the first 10 Nomcom chairs) were on a
design team that Russ Housley formed to look at issues
that had recurred across Nomcoms, which we don't really
have much visibility because there's not a lot of overlap
of Nomcom membership over time.
Do the right thing, of course :D
Spencer
Asa general model, people leave "elected" positions due to
term
expiration, resignation, expulsion (not IETF), recall,
death, or
disability (partial IETF - self-reporting yes as a
resignation,
non-self-reporting no). It may make sense to fill out
the full score
card while we're updating the recall process.
Later, Mike
|
