Re: [ietf-nomcom] Changing the candidate selection model

[SM <[e-mail]>]

Hi Joel,
At 06:22 19-06-2009, Joel M. Halpern wrote:
>John suggested in one of his notes that approving the current 
>open-list change would be a distraction from evaluating his 
>proposal.  I would strongly disagree.

Having an open list fulfills our innate curiosity.  If the open-list 
change goes through, it will delay John's proposal as the community 
will wait to see the results.  These micro-changes, which may have 
major effects, have brought up questions about the process.  There 
was a comment about whether a sentence in 
draft-dawkins-nomcom-openlist should have used a "must" instead of a 
"should".  This highlights the frame of mind in reading that 
document.   We are accustomed to using RFC 2119 key words in 
documenting protocols.  Is this document a protocol or to put it 
differently, will we reach the best outcome by following a protocol?

Even draft-dawkins-nomcom-openlist has exceptions.  In my opinion, 
this shows that we cannot craft narrow rules as we also have to 
consider the circumstances.  Is there an ideal candidate for the 
opening?  If there were, we would be choosing a stereotype which 
would prevent any change in the body from within.  That can be good 
if we want to go on with business as usual.  But that creates a 
disconnect between the community and the body.

The feedback from the community demonstrates that most participants 
keep away from process issues.  We only have to look at the NomCom 
roll call each year to see that it is a particular subset of the community.

Regards,
-sm