Re: [Pesci-discuss] Fw: Last NomCom 2005/06 Call for Volunteers

Spencer Dawkins wrote:
> Dear Pesci,
> 
> I saw something in Pekka's note on the IETF mailing list that I haven't 
> seen discussed previously.
> 
>> That aside, I personally didn't volunteer simply because the workload 
>> of NomCom appears to be just simply too much given the gains;  weekly 
>> [long] conference calls; lots of work going through the persons; an 
>> increased number of positions (13, plus more if there will be 
>> resignations later on) to fill.
>>
>> It's not an easy job.  Being able to give input to the IETF leadership 
>> certainly is VERY important, and having diverse set of people do it 
>> should be a big plus.  However, it may be worth considering whether 
>> it's something folks without strong employer backing for getting into 
>> that specific post can participate in .. and whether that's a good 
>> sign or not.
> 
> 
> I forwarded Pekka's note for a few reasons:
> 
> - I've been participating in an off-again, on-again discussion about 
> IESG overload for a couple of years, but am concerned that even 
> participating in NOMCOM may be out of reach for many IETF participants 
> (I know how hard Pekka works, and HE doesn't have time for NOMCOM?)
> 
> - More to the point for Pesci, we should probably remember this e-mail 
> when proposing MORE NOMCOM responsibilities - not that proposing more 
> NOMCOMed positions is a bad thing, only that it comes with certain 
> costs. Is it possible that PESCI recommendations might involve fewer 
> NOMCOMed positions?

Or even more fundamental changes to leadership selection methods?

    Brian

_______________________________________________
Pesci-discuss mailing list
Pesci-discuss@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pesci-discuss