On 3/31/2020 1:56 PM, Alissa Cooper wrote:
We made much larger changes to the nomcom process a couple of years ago long before any consensus documents were published. The changes made to the nominations process for the IETF Trust and the LLC Board were reflected in the work of both the 2018 nomcom and the 2019 nomcom, but the documentation of them didn’t finish IETF last call until June 24, 2019. There is no reason why the current circumstances should be held to a different standard
Um - no. We didn't change the process so much as add additional groups to the existing framework. There was broad agreement that the basics weren't up for revision, and that the paperwork was mostly backfilling the consensus and was an adjunct to processes that did have consensus (IASA changes). Basically, apples and rocks.
In the current case, I've yet to see consensus, and I'd be surprised to get one. Mainly because we're mostly working without data. Basically, it comes down to how many people will drop off the list if we exclude 102 (103-106), how many people will get added to the list if we include 107 remote registrations (102-107), and how many will be subtracted if we do both (103-107) or added if we do neither (102-106). And finally, for the newly eligible, what percentage might actually volunteer?
At this point I really don't care all that much because it's probably not going to materially affect the outcome of the Nomcom process - mainly because it was unexpected enough that no one was in a position to game this easily. Selecting one of these 4 different options at random may be the best strategy - everyone will be equally annoyed, but it might be possible to get consensus.
Later, Mike
