Re: draft-klensin-nomcom-term-00.txt

[Ralph Droms <[e-mail]>]

Brian - while I haven't thought through all of the implications of the
process in draft-klensin-nomcom-term-00.txt, I don't think the two-stage
process will necessarily significantly length then process.  The
proposed process would require re-shuffling of of specific tasks, but I
don't think it fundamentally adds any new work to the work in the
current process.  There are serialization and dependency timing issues,
but I think there is also some work that might be eliminated from the
current process.

The proposed process might also provide some time saving by
compartmentalizing the decision process - my intuition from recent
experience on nomcom is that some of the deliberation might have gone
more quickly if we had teased apart retention from nomination.

And some of the decision process would go away in the case of ADs who
have reached their term limits.

- Ralph

On Wed, 2005-07-27 at 15:13 +0200, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> Spencer,
> 
> I haven't fully analyzed the proposal yet, so I will refrain from
> substantive comment.
> 
> However, in answer to your question, I'm sure the answer is no,
> because the two-stage process suggested in the draft will add a
> significant number of weeks to the process, and we would almost
> certainly have to start about two months earlier. I haven't done
> a detailed analysis of the timeline, but I'm pretty sure we
> couldn't make it this year. And that's assuming we reached consensus
> very rapidly.
> 
>      Brian
> 
> Spencer Dawkins wrote:
> > This draft (available at
> > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-klensin-nomcom-term-00.txt)
> > does a reasonable job of balancing between current-generation leadership 
> > continuity and next-generation leadership development.
> > 
> > I have previously expressed the opinion that an absolute prohibition on 
> > four terms of continuous service would be preferable, but the 
> > flexibility granted to NOMCOM in this proposal is acceptable (and I 
> > could be wrong).
> > 
> > The current IETF is a better place because of several I* members who 
> > have returned to the community - they are providing strong technical 
> > leadership, without dots on badges. Honorable retirement after honorable 
> > service on IESG or IAB is not a bad thing.
> > 
> > If I read RFC 3777 correctly, we will be assembling the next NOMCOM very 
> > soon ("at least two months before the Third IETF"). So, I'm wondering...
> > 
> > If there is community consensus that this draft proposes something 
> > reasonable, would we give the draft to the incoming NOMCOM as part of 
> > their instructions and perform a BCP 93 process experiment?
> > 
> > Spencer
> > 
> > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > Ietf mailing list
> > [e-mail]
> > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
> > 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Ietf mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf