Re: draft-sullivan-nomcom-chair-select-00

[Stephen Farrell <[e-mail]>]

Hi Andrew,

I think you're probably right that some more guidance
for future ISOC presidents is a good thing.

I like the idea of asking for volunteers.

With others I'm less keen on the idea of publishing a
long list of volunteers - we have a history of seeing
some people volunteer for things for which they're not
at all qualified and it doesn't seem useful to me to
extend the set of things for which such people can have
their names listed.

I do like the idea of publishing a short-list (of
people that the ISOC president considers qualified)
and soliciting feedback on that. It ought be made
clear though that that's an optional step - there
could well be years where there's only person who
is both qualified and available, or, people on the
short-list might become unavailable - so it ought
still be considered nominal if a noncom-chair is
just announced as happens today.

Lastly, I also agree that previous nomcom experience
while desirable is not the main qualification - the
previous year's chair and liaisons can help with that
as needed IMO. Plenty of experience in the IETF seems
to me more likely to be a better requirement.

Cheers,
S.


On 14/02/2022 05:54, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
> Dear colleagues,
> 
> I write with my job hat on.  I'm employed by the Internet Society.
> 
> Part of my job here is to select the NomCom Chair.  I've been
> uncomfortable about how that has worked in the past, and more than a
> year ago I said I'd write a new process.  I failed at that goal, but
> it's a new year so I've finally written this.  It's at
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-sullivan-nomcom-chair-select/.
> 
> I am eagerly requesting feedback on that draft _for things under my
> control_.  The procedures in RFC 8713 give me a lot of latitude in how
> to deal with this appointment.  They give me no control whatsoever as
> to whether I _should_ be able to do this, who else should do it, and
> so on.  Feedback of the form "Here's how NomCom should work for real,"
> will be ignored, because they will not provide me guidance as to what
> I should do.
> 
> Please also resist the temptation to tell me, "Tell someone else it's
> their thing and promise to follow what they promise."  If the IETF
> wants to modify RFC 8713, including removing my own role in this
> selection, I don't imagine a universe in which I'd work to work to
> foil that.  But similarly I am not willing to create an entirely new
> consultative body (or new job for an existing consultative body)
> without the community saying so.  This document is merely an outline
> of how I plan to execute my duties as they're already defined.
> 
> I hope this will be a modest contribution to the IETF, and I look
> forward to your suggestions.
> 
> _Please_ send me feedback directly and not copied to the list.  I
> won't be able to follow discussion about this on the list except
> sporadically, and I'm going to have to put this plan into action some
> time in the coming weeks.  Thanks very much.
> 
> Best regards,
> 
> A
>