--On Monday, July 8, 2019 15:10 +0000 Scott Mansfield
<scott.mansfield@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>...
> Current (the community seems to favor) that 4.17 is talking
> only about Voting Volunteers not the whole Nominating
> Committee. So, section 4.17 should say that if that is what
> is desired.
>...
Scott,
Please don't assume this. First, inferring what the community
seems to favor from this thread assumes that the community is
equal to (or is adequately represented by) the sum of the people
who have few enough technical commitments that they are able to
prioritize this discussion, especially given today's posting
deadline, people who consider Nomcom issues sufficiently
important that they prioritized them over almost everything
else, the people who will always prioritize procedural work and
debates over other IETF activities, and people with too much
time on their hands. If those groups, together, represent even
a majority of IETF participants, I think it would indicate that
we are in big trouble.
In particular, many of us have been concerned for years that, as
the number of liaisons rises and the intrinsic knowledge by
voting members of candidates and roles drops, the opportunity
for the appearance that the former (and the advice they give)
are influencing choices toward "more of the same", retention of
incumbents, or seats that "belong to" particular companies goes
up as well.
It has been almost impossible to get a real discussion of these
types of issues over the years. Some have suggested, perhaps
unfairly, that the IESG has been reluctant to have such
discussions because, after all, the Nomcom process must be
working well because it selected them.
I think caution and conservatism are in order.
john
