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

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Thu, 10 September 2020 15:20 UTC

Return-Path: <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
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 9D00A3A09A8 for <eligibility-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 10 Sep 2020 08:20:03 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=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 NGdK6TQZLOvt for <eligibility-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 10 Sep 2020 08:20:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (tuna.sandelman.ca [209.87.249.19]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 46F773A099F for <eligibility-discuss@ietf.org>; Thu, 10 Sep 2020 08:19:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 98251389EB; Thu, 10 Sep 2020 10:58:46 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id BaHfVOVvSQiN; Thu, 10 Sep 2020 10:58:39 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from sandelman.ca (obiwan.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:2::247]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0E057389A5; Thu, 10 Sep 2020 10:58:39 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 83516212; Thu, 10 Sep 2020 11:19:50 -0400 (EDT)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: "STARK, BARBARA H" <bs7652@att.com>, "'eligibility-discuss@ietf.org'" <eligibility-discuss@ietf.org>
In-Reply-To: <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> <f43b1e6e57864ea1bc6bebf5f5b8f92a@att.com>
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6+git; nmh 1.7+dev; GNU Emacs 26.1
X-Face: $\n1pF)h^`}$H>Hk{L"x@)JS7<%Az}5RyS@k9X%29-lHB$Ti.V>2bi.~ehC0; <'$9xN5Ub# z!G,p`nR&p7Fz@^UXIn156S8.~^@MJ*mMsD7=QFeq%AL4m<nPbLgmtKK-5dC@#:k
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg="pgp-sha512"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2020 11:19:50 -0400
Message-ID: <5341.1599751190@localhost>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/eligibility-discuss/znXbjzC6-mlyamWSOaubroNo_YI>
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 15:20:04 -0000

STARK, BARBARA H <bs7652@att.com> wrote:
    >> > 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).

a) I think that the past-chair effort really ends around December.
   I personally found the past-chair effort rather easy.

b) More and earlier training of the current chair probably makes the job
   lighter late on.

But, I can respect that this seems scary looking at it.

So I claim that introducing the chair-elect earlier might not really be that
much more of a time commitment, the commitment is just shifted earlier.
The past-chair/chair relationship is important, so establishing it earlier
seems to be useful to me.
I was fortunate in that I was a voting member of the previous nomcom.

--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>   . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting )
           Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide