Re: Comments on Composition and Comportment of the IETF Nominating Committee draft

[S Moonesamy <[e-mail]>]

Hi Vittorio, Brian, George,
At 07:00 AM 08-07-2026, Vittorio Bertola wrote:
>This is why I did not say that you should always prefer the most 
>competent and expert candidates, but rather that you need to set a 
>minimum threshold of competence and experience, somewhere mid-way 
>between "at their first IETF meeting" and "been here 20 years".

I included three points in my previous comments.  The comments I have 
seen have been on Point 1.

I looked up the expertise required for an IESG member.  The first one 
I found was from 2009 [1].  It should be possible to get the 
information for other years as that is in the datatracker.

   "It is also imperative that IESG members attend all IETF meetings,
    typically arriving one or two days early.  IESG members also
    attend one, and sometimes two, IESG retreats per year."

There is also:

   (a) Because of the large time and travel commitments, employer
       support for a full two year term is essential.

   (b) Because of personal impact, including awkwardly timed
       conference calls, an IESG member's family must also be
       supportive.

I also looked up the results from the surveys.  Between 80% to 85% of 
the people who provided information were from gender A.

There has been discussions on Point (a), (b), and also the 
composition of attendees/participants, etc. over the years.  One of 
the side effects of Point (a) is that it is a disqualification factor 
for anyone who cannot get employer support for a full two year 
term.  I am not commenting on Point (b) as there are people who may 
be better placed to comment on that.

One of the issues in setting a high bar is that it could be viewed as 
a disqualification factor.  That is not to argue that there wouldn't 
be a minimum threshold (re. somewhat along the lines of Vittorio's 
comment).  If I had to explain the level of expertise in the IETF 
community, I would say that that a few of the subscribers to this 
mailing list could write and submit a review within five minutes.  I 
would not argue that those subscribers should go away (there is a 
parable from Chesterton which explains that).

>Also, in past Nomcoms I was part of in other organizations, this was 
>often seen as an aggregate assessment, e.g. you had to select three 
>people for the same board and you strived to pick a mix of insiders 
>and outsiders, engineers and business people, Western and Southern, 
>etc. It was rare to achieve balance under all dimensions, but you 
>tried to get as many as possible.

I agree with the above.

>This is also why I think that high level principles plus cultural 
>commitment work better than hard quotas.

It is not possible to see whether the high level principles worked if 
there are no known targets.  Setting a requirement (re. quota) would 
be needed if the targets are being missed repeatedly.  John Levine 
commented as follows: "the only applicants are (to oversimplify only 
slightly) two guys from the San Francisco suburbs".  A switch would 
be: the only applicants are two persons from same location.  The 
question is whether that would be a desirable change if the 
requirement was introduced.

At 09:35 PM 07-07-2026, George Michaelson wrote:
>Admittedly this probably says as much about me as it does about them 
>but the point is, I think this runs against the "incumbency" issue. 
>Yes, because to be a WG chair demands time, and because time as a WG 
>chair demands prior time as an author, by the time you meet tech 
>goals and understanding of IETF process to merit IESG you have been 
>around a long time, but no, I don't think this is an overwhelming 
>tendency to incumbents.
>
>I see new faces, new players.
>
>So tendency? Yes. possible. Actual eventuating circumstance? Less 
>sure. Perhaps weighted by age/experience but also, a LOT of new faces.

Nowadays, the information about whether someone has been a working 
group chair, RFC author, etc. can easily be found in the 
datatracker.  The authorship listing does not mean that the person 
was directly involved in the review/publication process.

I agree with George that a person may find out that he/she has been 
around for a long time when he/she is aware that he/she understands 
the finer details.  I would not use the word "merit" as it might 
convey that the title is an award; it's a personal choice.  The 
weighting (re. above comment) could be one of several factors to consider.

I don't know most of the IESG or IAB members.  I found out that a 
person is an IESG member when I read "DISCUSS" emails.

Regards,
S. Moonesamy

1. https://datatracker.ietf.org/nomcom/ann/1969/