Re: NomCom 2019 Call for Community Feedback

Bob Hinden <> Tue, 05 November 2019 15:52 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 019241200F5 for <>; Tue, 5 Nov 2019 07:52:39 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.998
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.998 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id eI3BCyCjkYzc; Tue, 5 Nov 2019 07:52:35 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::335]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A91CE12010E; Tue, 5 Nov 2019 07:52:34 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with SMTP id q130so20682808wme.2; Tue, 05 Nov 2019 07:52:34 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date:in-reply-to:cc:to :references; bh=dUj6+bInjk5dqCVJI7XH8y7kZ+6OXx/QvOuqlSSzvFc=; b=o/KZfS4tITRWUGCjINPW22BMdtwYqA3UKG+8q0dOwhg5yGcAaJwznrnUex/DtdGbiF SMXJAMtloLs24UchLinK0NW7XrwTj6sO+eu8XzqE8WZm25vf28RGCrrY95FpEoRP86o0 Ms2Fw1K2aJ0nyARwflUMHru/SJzvxPUrqkZcFDWTdrNgj48BDu2zzjQgc9mtGjfwr480 eL767QOq8bV3NVqlyIzMdZhm3OlQnx4hA4wS3WP46+C8I8SINeF5i7r7s030JNCC+ipW fRgg+AMBXEjmc1LidfQjlJe2eqTEu7cEQZxJvmrhD/KrQDIRUGIpp+Pr/eCmNlnGyk6w WyAA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date :in-reply-to:cc:to:references; bh=dUj6+bInjk5dqCVJI7XH8y7kZ+6OXx/QvOuqlSSzvFc=; b=Sod8u5Bl1q6fOeHQDundZSAHyT7GvpDQNMhNwvdy+5Ule7YPf/oF4qwSS2jRPDOhn5 ktdMCwyjWKrUckANf9KDKQKkO2dRQOSbAlULv4kuaxn4wR0vAV1uFjMkD6zh2ItWVINY r88v2e7jaaaIVqhjUIoLpTGCpaxRsG40rNHY3P41ZZAcKlenOvlWB2uDfoKtYGGKRCFv 8mDwK115IwRrZR5YbrAy3MvpHkPPyZoLLSM7mlUQ97oM6469f7QfqBHVPFFFSI4lJhFm zJCjxvJpCHWrk3xWfAjIO7L+F2k3KRphlsS35SCxon+2DC+FZYETIWI45YwQ5Rdhudki j4Hg==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAVC2bdJ1elFKtJ87H9cmedbOEb8ACf4yGXtAXjHKMy14cG7GtxW jZ0KqTdLgGXKuyX4sdLy7Kk=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqzpGkaZ1wDnjHtPVuQ3+EBAQAFPCFagL+/4B4H8bZRI5MxoRHtQrv/6vWrz6Iv7HVjRohBdiw==
X-Received: by 2002:a7b:cc0c:: with SMTP id f12mr4754629wmh.40.1572969153126; Tue, 05 Nov 2019 07:52:33 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ?IPv6:2601:647:5a00:ef0b:48c0:f3df:abc8:943c? ([2601:647:5a00:ef0b:48c0:f3df:abc8:943c]) by with ESMTPSA id j66sm15459813wma.19.2019. (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 05 Nov 2019 07:52:30 -0800 (PST)
From: Bob Hinden <>
Message-Id: <>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_CABDBE20-9FE7-4994-B1DE-289356D4FEDC"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha512
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 12.4 \(3445.104.11\))
Subject: Re: NomCom 2019 Call for Community Feedback
Date: Tue, 5 Nov 2019 07:52:26 -0800
In-Reply-To: <>
Cc: Bob Hinden <>, Jason Livingood <>, Paul Wouters <>, Kyle Rose <>, "" <>, IETF <>
To: "Salz, Rich" <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.104.11)
Archived-At: <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 05 Nov 2019 15:52:39 -0000


> On Nov 4, 2019, at 11:54 AM, Salz, Rich <> wrote:
> I wonder what people think would break if we moved to 5 AD's per area, and they could divide the WG's and IESG concalls amongst themselves?

Why stop there, how about one AD per working group?

I hope this helps makes it clear that more authority should go to the w.g. chairs, adding more AD won’t scale.   The NomCom needs to be selecting people who are not the best technical experts in an area, but who know enough to make sure that adequate review has been done in the working groups, verify directorate reviews, and that last call comments have been addressed.   They don’t need to do detailed technical reviews themselves.   They especially don’t need to do editorial reviews.

This might also allow the ADs to spend more time on working group charters to insure that the working group has the appropriate scope.