Re: [Eligibility-discuss] Fwd: I-D Action: draft-carpenter-eligibility-expand-06.txt

[Victor Kuarsingh <[e-mail]>]

Brian et al,

I had been a bit absent from the discussion so my input here may have been
already considered but I will make the point anyway.  I note this with my
Nomcom Chair and previous voting member hat on.

I realize path 3 is vector that can be mechanically evaluated, and my be
agreed to by the list/group.  However, my concerns are:
(1) it can result in people being allowed into the pool which are
unfamiliar with IETF community members whom are nominees for the positions
(2) listed as an author can include folks who may not have had any
participation in the IETF at all (just listed)

Both of these issues (related to each other) can make it difficult for that
person to participate in an adequate way with respect to the following
duties
- Driving / contributing the questionnaire
- Driving / contributing to interview questions
- Conducting interviews (where adaptive questions may be needed for
evaluation)
- Participating in the active discussion where nominee attributes abilities
and group/body needs are discuss (with adequate context)

Item (2) above can also be used as a vector to introduce people into the
Nomcom whom are not primarily focused on the IETF work, but seeking
selection in the Nomcom itself (not for the test period since its likely
too late for that), but if adopted over time.   One can say this is true
for path 1, but the bar is much higher given the need to actually attend
(in-person or remotely) which exposes folks in some cases to outside
working group activities (increasing familiarity with people, roles, and
teams).

Although not every member of the Nomcom body is familiar with all rules
and/or nominees, but by extending the pool too far (far == folks likely to
be less familiar with the people, teams, groups, work), we can add risk
that there can be some areas represented by enough (or anybody) on the
Nomcom body outside of Liaisons and advisors.  If this is the result, the
Chair may need to work harder to provide context, drive questions, promote
adequate discussion which then, in my opinion, puts too much onus on the
chair (and causes potentially natural bias)

However, I do think the experiment is a good approach to the challenge we
face.

regards,

Victor K







On Tue, Oct 13, 2020 at 11:18 PM Brian E Carpenter <
[e-mail]> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> This version has been updated (with advice from Bron) according to what
> we've understood of the discussions since the previous version, plus
> today's news:
>
> * Allowed for IETF 110 decision
> * Resolved open issue (see the previous point)
> * Removed "future work" section (as suggested on the list)
> * Editorial improvements
>
>     Brian + Stephen
>
> -------- Forwarded Message --------
> Subject: I-D Action: draft-carpenter-eligibility-expand-06.txt
> Date: Tue, 13 Oct 2020 20:01:38 -0700
> From: [e-mail]
> Reply-To: [e-mail]
> To: [e-mail]
>
>
> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts
> directories.
>
>
>         Title           : Additional Criteria for Nominating Committee
> Eligibility
>         Authors         : Brian E. Carpenter
>                           Stephen Farrell
>         Filename        : draft-carpenter-eligibility-expand-06.txt
>         Pages           : 8
>         Date            : 2020-10-13
>
> Abstract:
>    This document defines a process experiment under RFC 3933 that
>    temporarily updates the criteria for qualifying volunteers to
>    participate in the IETF Nominating Committee.  It therefore also
>    updates the criteria for qualifying signatories to a community recall
>    petition.  The purpose is to make the criteria more flexible in view
>    of increasing remote participation in the IETF and a reduction in
>    face-to-face meetings.  The experiment is of fixed duration and will
>    apply to one, or at most two, Nominating Committee cycles.  This
>    document temporarily varies the rules in RFC 8713.
>
>
> The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-carpenter-eligibility-expand/
>
> There is also an HTML version available at:
> https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-carpenter-eligibility-expand-06.html
>
> A diff from the previous version is available at:
> https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-carpenter-eligibility-expand-06
>
>
> Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of
> submission
> until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org.
>
> Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
> ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> I-D-Announce mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i-d-announce
> Internet-Draft directories: http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html
> or ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt
>
> --
> Eligibility-discuss mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/eligibility-discuss
>