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

[Dave Crocker <[e-mail]>]

On 6/26/2013 9:52 AM, S Moonesamy wrote:
> 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.



On 6/26/2013 10:10 AM, Joel wrote:>
 > 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.




Since both of you cited my comments and since they were intentionally 
extremely narrow, I'll broaden them just a bit:

1. There is no reasonable method that can ensure high levels of relevant 
expertise on Nomcom; the best we can attempt is some sort of highly 
flawed approximation(s).

2. I think the current, single, simplistic criterion of showing up at 3 
recent meetings is massively flawed and guarantees occasionally having 
nomcoms lacking any meaningful expertise.  And yes, I said guarantees.

3. Having /some/ people chosen by that simplistic criteria has the 
benefit of genetic variation.  All sorts of unexpected people can show 
up and participate, offering wildly different perspectives.  That's it's 
strength and that's it's weakness.  I think there is merit in schemes 
that display both strengths and weaknesses, but only if both are 
attended to.

4. To assure that there is at least some specific expertise amongst 
voting nomcom members, at least some members of nomcom need to be 
selected with a method that requires that expertise.  In the case of 
nomcom, the most important expertise is direct knowledge of how things 
are actually managed, both well and poorly.  In my view, the nomcoms 
that I've been around that had a solid amount of that experience had far 
better evaluation and deliberation processes than those that had less of 
that experience.

5. We currently do nothing that attends to the problem of #2.

6. The proposal that I floated some years ago was to allocate /a 
portion/ of the nomcom membership to a pool of nomcom volunteers who had 
a history of principal contribution.  One can debate the details of 
course, but plausible experience could be RFC author, WG Chair, member 
of IAB, IESG or IAOC.  That's just an exemplar list; I'm not trying to 
propose it as /the/ list.

7. I agree that a history of active participation in f2f meetings 
provides experiences that are not otherwise possible and that these can 
greatly improve one's ability to assess candidates for IETF positions.

8. Showing up at f2f nomcom sessions strikes me as essential; nomcom 
workings are difficult enough.

9. One could easily imagine that previous experience at having been a 
principal, with continued active participation, but a lack of recent 
attendance, could mean that a nomcom volunteer is actually a far better 
nomcom participant than many of those who qualify by the current 
simplistic criterion.

d/
-- 
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net