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

[Mallory Knodel <[e-mail]>]

Hi all,
Top posting to note that this document will be on the agenda for
gendispatch. Comments now and then are both welcome.
Thank you to commenters and gendispatch chairs,
-Mallory

On Wed, Jul 8, 2026 at 6:04 PM S Moonesamy <[e-mail]> wrote:

> 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://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__datatracker.ietf.org_nomcom_ann_1969_&d=DwIBAg&c=slrrB7dE8n7gBJbeO0g-IQ&r=krANNudPSfUTEf2kXiduBUqRjXhDsKNCASr1kibHLfs&m=Lv0FWItoBoY_NDix8DYlA_hW0HyiPjx8MuKIUMx5XLeRfMAlpV-mhMt7_oWKMjoc&s=X2xkxBT8rCJ1jP4Vs5BHW_3Y6tJonr8sQrs5fTkmXok&e=
>
>
>