Re: On diversity in the NomCom

John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com> Wed, 15 July 2020 19:13 UTC

Return-Path: <john-ietf@jck.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D0DBB3A0EEF; Wed, 15 Jul 2020 12:13:47 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.897
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.897 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=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 uriae3TX3u-g; Wed, 15 Jul 2020 12:13:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from bsa2.jck.com (bsa2.jck.com [70.88.254.51]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A349C3A0EED; Wed, 15 Jul 2020 12:13:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [198.252.137.10] (helo=PSB) by bsa2.jck.com with esmtp (Exim 4.82 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <john-ietf@jck.com>) id 1jvmqe-000HBm-39; Wed, 15 Jul 2020 15:13:44 -0400
Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2020 15:13:38 -0400
From: John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>
To: Eliot Lear <lear=40cisco.com@dmarc.ietf.org>, Tommy Pauly <tpauly=40apple.com@dmarc.ietf.org>
cc: Christian Huitema <huitema@huitema.net>, The IETF List <ietf@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: On diversity in the NomCom
Message-ID: <43EE2F8EBE9D6552CAD3164D@PSB>
In-Reply-To: <895D9400-4422-4737-A01C-CB8D43C1FEE3@cisco.com>
References: <5E5A5C4C-854A-4F5A-8692-195828752A51@gmail.com> <D93CB255-893F-46B6-AA48-8ED2ECB44BDC@huitema.net> <57FA12AF-0309-487E-A8D0-161C4B05100F@apple.com> <895D9400-4422-4737-A01C-CB8D43C1FEE3@cisco.com>
X-Mailer: Mulberry/4.0.8 (Win32)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 198.252.137.10
X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: john-ietf@jck.com
X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on bsa2.jck.com); SAEximRunCond expanded to false
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/PCTQbBOQjfQIJ3d_ihjnP6dkV_k>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ietf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2020 19:13:48 -0000


--On Wednesday, July 15, 2020 11:38 +0200 Eliot Lear
<lear=40cisco.com@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:

>> Areas have changed over the years, and I'd be reticent to
>> see these areas institutionalized to the point that people
>> choose "primary" affiliations. I certainly wouldn't
>> want to have to choose an affiliation.
> 
> I agree that hardcoding areas is a bad idea.  They are already
> hardcoded enough (the number of changes in 30 years can be
> counted on two hands at most).  In a way, I wish we could
> strip the labels entirely and just let the IESG self-organize
> around the work at hand, indicating to NOMCOM how many people
> they feel they need to cover the workload.

My earlier comments and strawman proposal notwithstanding, I
agree. I'm perhaps oversensitive due to speading too large a
fraction of my IETF time on fringe areas (you know, like email,
Internet-PSTN boundaries, and internationalization). However, in
the least couple of decades, I've sat in many WGs and listened
to people say "we don't want to understand that, we just want a
simple solution" (sometimes with WG Chairs agreeing), seen the
IAB push architectural issues that are important to the Internet
aside because no one in their membership both cared about and
understood them, and have seen multiple documents held up in the
IESG because no one understood the subject matter (but one or
more ADs acted as if they felt a need to have opinions anyway
without a willingness to spend the time to learn).   I'm also
seen reason to question the ability of a Nomcom with no, or
almost no, experience on the relevant topics to evaluate
candidates for the IAOC and LLC Board.  One certainly cannot
blame those problems (others may not even agree that they are
problems) entirely on Nomcoms and their composition but I can't
help feeling that, if Nomcoms had people on them who could
advocate for a broader set of perspectives and for consideration
of the importance of various technologies, we might be better
off.

best,
   john