Re: NomCom selection Fwd: Notification for draft-eastlake-rfc3797bis-00.txt

[Joel Halpern <[e-mail]>]

It seems to me that the point about one chair having influence over two 
successive cycles is relevant.  Also, the lack of a pst chair if someone 
does it twice in a row seems to be unfortunate.

More importantly, if it is only a matter of whether it is permitted to 
appoint someone twice, the RFC is silent on the matter.  I see no reason 
why it should say anything.

Yours,

Joel

On 5/1/2023 11:33 AM, Behcet Sarikaya wrote:
> To Mary: let's say  someone did it well and happy to do it again, why 
> not allow this person?
> To Donald: Like ADs get a two year term, so 2 year term is not that 
> uncommon in IETF.
>
> Why not Nomcom chair?
>
> Behcet
>
>
>
> On Fri, Apr 28, 2023 at 12:28 PM Donald Eastlake <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
>     I agree with Mary.
>
>     Also, with selection of most positions being for a 2 year term,
>     you do not want the same person having been Chair of the nomcoms
>     that controlled the selection of all of the members of the
>     IESG/IAB/etc. In fact, I think it would be reasonable to prohibit
>     someone from ever serving more than once as nomcom Chair -- this
>     has never occurred -- in any case they certainly shouldn't be able
>     to serve as nomcom Chair again until some reasonably large number
>     of years have passed, like 10 years or more.
>
>     Thanks,
>     Donald
>     ===============================
>      Donald E. Eastlake 3rd   [phone] (cell)
>      2386 Panoramic Circle, Apopka, FL 32703 USA
>     [e-mail]
>
>
>     On Fri, Apr 28, 2023 at 1:18 PM Mary B <[e-mail]>
>     wrote:
>
>         I disagree with this.  The Nomcom chair job is intensive - I
>         worked 7 days a week from Sept-Dec as Nomcom chair and doing a
>         regular job.  I think that also makes it much harder to find a
>         chair and that job is already challenging.   The model right
>         now has the past year's chair as a participant to provide
>         continuity.  I think the community benefits from having a new
>         chair every year.
>
>         Regards,
>         Mary.
>
>         On Fri, Apr 28, 2023 at 11:49 AM Behcet Sarikaya
>         <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
>             Hi all,
>             Since we are in the process of modifying the "nomcom law",
>             I suggest that we also change the rule of appointing a new
>             nomcom chair every year, instead make it possible for
>             someone to do it for two years?
>
>             Behcet
>
>             On Wed, Apr 26, 2023 at 12:50 PM Salz, Rich
>             <rsalz=[e-mail]> wrote:
>
>                 Does anyone disagree with the following?
>                 - 8713 will not be updated in time to take effect for
>                 this NomCom's selection process.
>                 - The text of 8713 specifies a process that, if
>                 followed, means a delay of at least one week, and
>                 perhaps at least two weeks.
>
>                 "Picking next one the list" is the process recommended
>                 by at least the last half-dozen NomCom chairs, and
>                 followed by at least one of them (me); perhaps more
>                 than one. Yes, this can be gamed.  So what; security
>                 is about trade-offs and saving time is more important
>                 for now.
>
>                 Some folks might want to review the errata at
>                 https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/rfc8713. I have no
>                 idea where discussions of that should happen.
>
>                 It wasn't clear to me if Rob was proposing an
>                 interpretation of 8713, or providing input to a revision.
>
>                 I had to disqualify one potential volunteer. They said
>                 yes, and then I was unable to interact with them for
>                 the next three days (it was the weekend).  One day is
>                 not enough. And weekends aren't the same globally,
>                 once you allow for timezones or countries that observe
>                 the classic Sabbath.
>
>