Re: [ietf-nomcom] The Nominating Committee Process: Eligibility

[Joel <[e-mail]>]

 From where I sit, as a practical matter, one needs to understand the 
face-to-face interactions in order to lead effectively in the IETF. 
That may be a bad ting.  But changing the leadership before we change 
that ground reality will produce a major problem for the continued 
effective functioning of the organization.

Now, you may disagree with my assertion of what he job requires.  But if 
you accept it, then it is really hard to see how someone who has not 
seen the face-to-face interaction can effectively select leaders who can 
handle that part of the job.  I am not saying that is the only 
qualification.  But it is an important.

Note that although Dave expressed concern about the efficacy of the 
filter we currently use, I don't think he was advocating the removal of 
the filter.

You seem to be asserting that the requirement I describe in the first 
paragraph as a form of discrimination.  In a purely linguistic sense, it 
is.  But that does not change the reality.  Which is why I keep coming 
back to asking to change the reality first.

Yours,
Joel

On 6/26/2013 12:52 PM, S Moonesamy wrote:
> Hi Joel,
> At 06:34 26-06-2013, Joel wrote:
>> I appreciate the clarity of your response below, and hope I have
>> understood to.
>
> I'll comment below.
>
>> To highlight where I see the disconnect, you are proposing that we
>> appoint nomcom members who are lacking critical understanding of how
>> the IETF works, in order to bring in better perspective on the needs
>> of the folks who are not presently involved.
>
> No, the argument is that NomCom eligibility criteria should not
> discriminate between any contributor to the IETF Standard Process.
>
> It is difficult to find criteria to assess who has critical
> understanding of how the IETF works.  We could, for example, assume that
> WG Chairs, Area Directors and IAB members have the experience and
> understand how the IETF works.  It would look like an oligarchy.  Such
> an approach would take the IETF back to Kobe.
>
> As Dave Crocker mentioned, "attending" IETF meetings does not guarantee
> any level of knowledge about IETF work, yet "attending" is the key
> criterion.
>
>> I would like to see more involvement from more folks i more parts of
>> the world wit more diverse sponsors (including making it easier for
>> those without sponsors).  But trying to change the culture by picing
>> folks to pick leaders who do not understand the existing needs and
>> culture seems a recipe for failure.
>
> I'll step back here; who am I to decide who should or should not have
> the privilege to have a say or has an understanding of the existing
> needs and culture?  I am more comfortable treating everyone as equals.
> A person only has to pay for three meetings and it is assumed that he or
> she understands IETF culture.
>
>> Put simply, I think we need to come up with good ways to improve the
>> various forms of involvement.  The efforts by the IAOC to improve the
>> remote participation setup is a step
>>  towards that.  I hope that the diversity committee will come up with
>> useful steps.
>
> I cannot comment about the diversity committee internals.  I can share
> my opinion about the topic.
>
> Improving the remote participation setup does not improve involvement.
> The message that the IETF is sending out is that "you can submit drafts
> and participate remotely but we cannot let you decide as you do not
> understand the IETF.  We say we are open and transparent but our culture
> is based on backroom deals".
>
> Regards,
> S. Moonesamy