Re: Qualifying for NomCom

[Ted Lemon <[e-mail]>]

What do you mean by "coming to consensus?"

On Thu, Apr 7, 2016 at 3:11 PM, Murray S. Kucherawy <[e-mail]>
wrote:

> Yes, this again.
>
> I've refreshed RFC7437bis in the datatracker since we're effectively
> between active NomCom periods, so now's a good time to take another look at
> this.
>
> For those that didn't follow along last time, the big showstopper for this
> draft as I have it now had to do with updating the criteria for qualifying
> to serve on the NomCom.  The current draft says:
>
> (1) To qualify, one must have attended three of the last five in-person
> meetings, as it's been for a long time now.
>
> (2) This is regularly criticized as selecting for attendees with the
> support and budget to travel to the meetings, and possibly excludes people
> who make substantial or numerous IETF contributions but participate
> remotely more than in person.
>
> We made previous attempts on this list to come up with new criteria given
> (2) above, but weren't successful at coming to consensus, so I took them
> back out, leaving the text that's there now.  The previous thread:
> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/QHwG1KrQDBK9u0wsfALjPSre-pw
>
> I'd like to take another run at this before the next NomCom really gets
> going.  One suggestion I was given here at IETF 95 is to come up with some
> system that's worth trying, and not over-engineer it to protect against
> gaming or other abuses until such time as such abuse is evident.  It might,
> for example, be sufficient defense to empower the NomCom Chair or the IETF
> Chair (or both) with a "panic button", making them able to declare that
> selection criteria will fall back to what we have now if it looks like the
> proposed new qualification system is likely to yield an inappropriate set
> of selecting NomCom members.
>
> Comments welcome.
>
> -MSK
>