Re: [Eligibility-discuss] Suggestions for nomcom chair selection?

"STARK, BARBARA H" <bs7652@att.com> Thu, 10 September 2020 01:11 UTC

Return-Path: <bs7652@att.com>
X-Original-To: eligibility-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: eligibility-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C208E3A09E8 for <eligibility-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 9 Sep 2020 18:11:16 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.898
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.898 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id dNJ15w7hbvYc for <eligibility-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 9 Sep 2020 18:11:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx0a-00191d01.pphosted.com (mx0a-00191d01.pphosted.com [67.231.149.140]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C930A3A09E7 for <eligibility-discuss@ietf.org>; Wed, 9 Sep 2020 18:11:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from pps.filterd (m0048589.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by m0048589.ppops.net-00191d01. (8.16.0.42/8.16.0.42) with SMTP id 08A11k08023849; Wed, 9 Sep 2020 21:11:15 -0400
Received: from alpi154.enaf.aldc.att.com (sbcsmtp6.sbc.com [144.160.229.23]) by m0048589.ppops.net-00191d01. with ESMTP id 33f2p2saet-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Wed, 09 Sep 2020 21:11:15 -0400
Received: from enaf.aldc.att.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by alpi154.enaf.aldc.att.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id 08A1BEHu011757; Wed, 9 Sep 2020 21:11:14 -0400
Received: from zlp30487.vci.att.com (zlp30487.vci.att.com [135.47.91.176]) by alpi154.enaf.aldc.att.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id 08A1B6Hj011656 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO); Wed, 9 Sep 2020 21:11:07 -0400
Received: from zlp30487.vci.att.com (zlp30487.vci.att.com [127.0.0.1]) by zlp30487.vci.att.com (Service) with ESMTP id 2E8794016D82; Thu, 10 Sep 2020 01:11:06 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from GAALPA1MSGEX1CD.ITServices.sbc.com (unknown [135.50.89.111]) by zlp30487.vci.att.com (Service) with ESMTPS id 1A8BD4016D81; Thu, 10 Sep 2020 01:11:06 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from GAALPA1MSGEX1CB.ITServices.sbc.com (135.50.89.109) by GAALPA1MSGEX1CD.ITServices.sbc.com (135.50.89.111) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) id 15.1.2044.4; Wed, 9 Sep 2020 21:10:59 -0400
Received: from GAALPA1MSGEX1CB.ITServices.sbc.com ([135.50.89.109]) by GAALPA1MSGEX1CB.ITServices.sbc.com ([135.50.89.109]) with mapi id 15.01.2044.004; Wed, 9 Sep 2020 21:10:59 -0400
From: "STARK, BARBARA H" <bs7652@att.com>
To: 'Michael Richardson' <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>, "'eligibility-discuss@ietf.org'" <eligibility-discuss@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [Eligibility-discuss] Suggestions for nomcom chair selection?
Thread-Index: AQHWcnAxYzqoDc44rUCfLIqeJTHcnqlgwctPgABsCICAAArdAP//vqEA
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2020 01:10:59 +0000
Message-ID: <f43b1e6e57864ea1bc6bebf5f5b8f92a@att.com>
References: <20200814192145.iiuoma7a3frf7mm7@crankycanuck.ca> <006801d672e1$3a7989a0$af6c9ce0$@olddog.co.uk> <20200909180148.lr6ra2kgpsp3b4js@crankycanuck.ca> <9cebc2cb-656e-23ba-3e0f-996ed97de825@nthpermutation.com> <16328.1599685662@localhost>
In-Reply-To: <16328.1599685662@localhost>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [135.70.79.115]
x-tm-snts-smtp: 892CB12315D5D7C890379B64FC1F286EAAC58DFDA78A9D08D303153BFBC7D5672
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:6.0.235, 18.0.687 definitions=2020-09-09_17:2020-09-09, 2020-09-09 signatures=0
X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_policy_notspam policy=outbound_policy score=0 mlxscore=0 lowpriorityscore=0 clxscore=1011 malwarescore=0 bulkscore=0 adultscore=0 priorityscore=1501 suspectscore=0 phishscore=0 mlxlogscore=719 spamscore=0 impostorscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.12.0-2006250000 definitions=main-2009100005
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/eligibility-discuss/RWn8cCSKI90w7xWMvrNn5RDe3yg>
Subject: Re: [Eligibility-discuss] Suggestions for nomcom chair selection?
X-BeenThere: eligibility-discuss@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: <eligibility-discuss.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/eligibility-discuss>, <mailto:eligibility-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/eligibility-discuss/>
List-Post: <mailto:eligibility-discuss@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:eligibility-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/eligibility-discuss>, <mailto:eligibility-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2020 01:11:17 -0000


>     > As I was re-reading this thread, I came up with a fairly strange idea.
> 
>     > Let's let the Nomcom select the next Nomcom chair, with the approval of
> the
>     > IAB and IESG.
> 
>     > Minimum ( non-waivable) qualifications:  Must have served on the
> Nomcom
>     > within the last 6 years (not including the current one). Must not have
> served
>     > as chair within the last 10. Must have at least 2 up
> votes  (recommendations)
>     > from people (voting members?) who were on their same
> Nomcom.  Must not be
>     > working for the same company as any of the previous 5 chairs were when
> they
>     > served as chairs.  (Each of those numbers is arbitrary - can be twiddled for
>     > balance - here just as a suggested starting point)
> 
> I think that this might be overconstrained, but I certainly like the idea.

Note that the current NomCom chair has no prior NomCom experience. 
I suspect this was not for lack of asking prior NomCom participants.
I suggest being careful adding constraints to a position that many people
do not want. Or adding length of term / time commitment (e.g., 3 years 
as chair-elect, chair, and then past chair advisor, instead of the current 2).
Barbara