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

OK, now I'm more concerned...

I totally agree with Pekka on the "big vendors who can sponsor volunteers" 
issue.

> So, my concern here is that current NOMCOM structure seems to encourage 
> participation from big vendors who can promise their employees something 
> to the effect of:
>
> "being able to affect IETF leadership is so important that we'll get you a 
> big bonus and shift off your day-time job if you get chosen -- 
> you must put your name to the hat!"
>
> .. and this seems troublesome.

And, in another response, Brian responded to my question this way:

>> - 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?

I'm not opposed to such, but do have concerns that anything we use to 
replace NOMCOM should be as difficult to "game" as NOMCOM has been.

We must also remember that "big vendors" are acting in their own 
self-interest - while NOMCOM hasn't been perfect, it's been fairly difficult 
to "game" for most of the time I've been in the IETF; if we make fundamental 
changes to leadership selection methods, we need to end up with a selection 
mechanism that's still difficult to game.

Spencer 

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