Subject: meeting attendance & nomcom

From: Eliot Lear <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 09 Jan 2009 07:56:48 +0100

Dear all,

I don't know about other companies, but mine has pretty tight travel 
restrictions right now.  I do not yet know if I will make the San 
Francisco IETF or Stockholm.  I suspect attendance at both will be way 
down, but it's a hunch.  If others are in the same position, it will 
lead to a potential problem with the NOMCOM, which is that the pool of 
eligible volunteers may shrink to an unacceptably low number.  It seems 
to me we already had problems getting a large enough pool in good times.

And so my questions:

1.  Do others agree that this is likely to be a problem?

[Stop here if no.]

2. If so, what should be done about it?

There are a couple of alternatives:

1.  Increase the number of meetings we look at to determine pool size.
2.  Expand the criteria based on other means (like authorship, mailing 
list activity, virtual meeting participation, etc).
3.  Other

Comments?

Eliot

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

---

From: Scott Brim <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2009 08:36:33 -0500

Hi Eliot.

I agree this is a problem ... but not one that we can solve yet.  At
this time the face-to-face meetings are still essential, and one
cannot evaluate candidates without good knowledge of what an I*
member's life is like at them.  If/when we manage to reduce the
significance of the face-to-face meetings, then we can and should
change nomcom membership requirements.

Scott

---

From: James Galvin <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 09 Jan 2009 09:08:17 -0500

-- On January 9, 2009 7:56:48 AM +0100 Eliot Lear <[email-masked]> 
wrote regarding meeting attendance & nomcom --

> I suspect attendance at both will be
> way down, but it's a hunch.  If others are in the same position, it
> will lead to a potential problem with the NOMCOM, which is that the
> pool of eligible volunteers may shrink to an unacceptably low number.

Do we have any recent data on how much of a problem this really is? 
Three times in the past we have had attendance statistics done and it 
has always been the case that the number of eligible volunteers does 
not change that much.  The last time would have been before 2004, the 
last time the document was updated.  I recall it always being less than 
150 people for both the 2 out of 3 case and the 3 out of 5 case.

I think it would be very helpful to this discussion if we could get 
some statistics for the last 3 meetings such as the following.

How many people have attended:

   3 of the last 5 meetings
   4 of the last 5 meetings
   5 of the last 5 meetings

   3 of the last 6 meetings
   4 of the last 6 meetings
   5 of the last 6 meetings
   6 of the last 6 meetings

   3 of the last 7 meetings
   4 of the last 7 meetings
   5 of the last 7 meetings
   6 of the last 7 meetings
   7 of the last 7 meetings

If we had this for the last 3 meetings we should be able to see the 
beginnings of a trend, if there is one.  And if there is one we'd have 
some data to consider when discussing what to change the 3 out of 5 
rule to.  Of course we might still want to broaden criteria as you 
suggest, but let's see which problem we have: not enough volunteers or 
not enough eligible volunteers.

Jim

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 09 Jan 2009 11:11:15 -0500

--On Friday, January 09, 2009 8:36 -0500 Scott Brim
<[email-masked]> wrote:

> Hi Eliot.
> 
> I agree this is a problem ... but not one that we can solve
> yet.  At this time the face-to-face meetings are still
> essential, and one cannot evaluate candidates without good
> knowledge of what an I* member's life is like at them.

Scott,

Part of the reason for the current requirements is exactly what
I think you are suggesting -- to raise the odds that Nomcom
members will actually know the candidates and have had the
opportunity to see them in action in some roles.   However, my
impression from the outside is that the Nomcom is depending more
and more on questionnaires for potential candidates, requests
for written input from a variety of people, email requests to
candidates and others for information about specific issues and
perspectives, etc., and not on the prior knowledge of the Nomcom
members.

If that impression is correct, then the requirement for Nomcom
members to have attended a lot of IETF meetings may be less
relevant than it was a decade or so ago, even though one might
reasonably require that any volunteer have a firm expectation of
being able to attend f2f Nomcom meetings, participate in f2f
interviews, etc. (i.e., attend several meetings in succession
even if their earlier participation was less dense).

In addition, since Nomcoms seem to mostly evaluate and then
return incumbents (whether that is good or bad is a separate
issue; it is an observable fact), a case can be made that
evaluations from within the Nomcom about how I* members deal
with participants who do not routinely attend meetings could
actually enhance the Nomcom's effectiveness.

    john

---

From: Scott Brim <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 09 Jan 2009 11:26:32 -0500

John C Klensin allegedly wrote on 1/9/09 11:11 AM:
> opportunity to see them in action in some roles.   

But also that nomcom members have some clue to what the life of an
IAB/IESG member is like.  I don't see how you can possibly understand
that without seeing it all in action at a face-to-face meeting.

> However, my

That's a point, but it would argue for having a quota of people who had
_not_ attended recent meetings on the nomcom, rather than just relaxing
the current requirement.

swb

---

From: "Alexey Melnikov" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2009 17:33:59 +0100

> that without seeing it all in action at a face-to-face meeting.

I think any WG chair or shepherd sees a lot of IESG work. Face-to-face
meetings can't uncover this work in full.
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

---

From: "Steven M. Bellovin" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2009 11:37:18 -0500

On Fri, 09 Jan 2009 11:11:15 -0500
John C Klensin <[email-masked]> wrote:

> though one might

I think this is a very important point.
> actually enhance the Nomcom's effectiveness.
At the time Scott put me on the IPng directorate, I'd never attended a
meeting...

Meanwhile, you might be interested in the draft paper at
http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~smb/papes/codebooks.pdf -- even if it cites
a very different Unicode...

		--Steve Bellovin, http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~smb
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

---

From: John Leslie <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2009 11:47:56 -0500

> that without seeing it all in action at a face-to-face meeting.

   May I recommend the Narrative Minutes at

http://www.ietf.org/IESG/iesg-narrative.shtml

   (What an IETFnn attendee sees is much less than 10% of the job.)

--
John Leslie <[email-masked]>
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

---

From: Stephen Casner <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2009 09:34:02 -0800 (PST)

On Fri, 9 Jan 2009, Eliot Lear wrote:

> Francisco IETF or Stockholm.  I suspect attendance at both will be
> pool of eligible volunteers may shrink to an unacceptably low
> number.  It seems to me we already had problems getting a large
> enough pool in good times.

If attendance is way down, then IETF will have a much bigger problem
than finding NOMCOM volunteers.

                                                         -- Steve

---

From: "Steven M. Bellovin" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2009 12:35:34 -0500

On Fri, 9 Jan 2009 11:37:18 -0500
"Steven M. Bellovin" <[email-masked]> wrote:

Folks -- I hit 'send' too soon; it was supposed to be a private message.
> http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~smb/papes/codebooks.pdf -- even if it
> cites a very different Unicode...
> 
That link doesn't work; the error is pretty obvious.  But since I
hadn't intended it to be public yet, I'll let anyone who cares figure
it out for themselves...

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 09 Jan 2009 13:39:25 -0500

--On Friday, January 09, 2009 11:26 -0500 Scott Brim
<[email-masked]> wrote:

>> Part of the reason for the current requirements is exactly
>> what I think you are suggesting -- to raise the odds that
>> Nomcom members will actually know the candidates and have had
>> the opportunity to see them in action in some roles.   
> 
> But also that nomcom members have some clue to what the life
> of an IAB/IESG member is like.  I don't see how you can
> possibly understand that without seeing it all in action at a
> face-to-face meeting.

At the risk of repeating Spencer's comment in more concrete
terms, if we believe "getting a [realistic] clue to what the
life of an IAB/IESG member is like", then the Nomcom should be
restricted to people who have had access to the internal
meetings and interactions of those bodies, i.e., former IESG or
IAB members, possibly IESG scribe and IAB ExecDirs, and maybe
some present or former WG Chairs.  The typical participant in
the community sees those people only in occasional comments to
WGs, staged performances during the plenaries, and in their
written (and tracker-logged) responses to documents.  The last
of these is, of course, equally accessible to those who attend
meetings and those who do not.  The comments to WGs show up on
mailing lists and in Jabber logs, which means that the only
thing the typical IETF participant who attends meetings has
access to that those who do not attend don't is the plenary
performances.  I have difficulty believing that those give any
great insight into "their life as IAB/IESG members".

I dislike that situation for many reasons.  However, I think it
is consistent with my main point, which is that Eliot's concern
may come together with other evolutionary factors in the IETF to
justify reexamining the assumptions between the meeting
attendance requirement, not just trying to tweak it.

    john

---

From: Michael Richardson <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 09 Jan 2009 14:30:59 -0500

>>>>> "Scott" == Scott Brim <[email-masked]> writes:
    Scott> I agree this is a problem ... but not one that we can solve
    Scott> yet.  At this time the face-to-face meetings are still
    Scott> essential, and one cannot evaluate candidates without good

  Nobody will be eligible.
  If I told my boss and/or wife that I was nomcom, and had to go, it
would be different.  But I won't qualify for nomcom in 2009.

-- 
]     Y'avait une poule de jammé dans l'muffler!!!!!!!!!        |  firewalls  [
]   Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works, Ottawa, ON    |net architect[
] [email-masked] http://www.sandelman.ottawa.on.ca/ |device driver[
] panic("Just another Debian GNU/Linux using, kernel hacking, security guy"); [
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

---

From: Michael Richardson <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 09 Jan 2009 14:34:18 -0500

>>>>> "Eliot" == Eliot Lear <[email-masked]> writes:
    Eliot> And so my questions:

    Eliot> 1.  Do others agree that this is likely to be a problem?

  Yes.  it is already a problem.
 
    Eliot> 2. If so, what should be done about it?

    Eliot> There are a couple of alternatives:

    Eliot> 1.  Increase the number of meetings we look at to determine
    Eliot> pool size.  2.  Expand the criteria based on other means
    Eliot> (like authorship, mailing list activity, virtual meeting
    Eliot> participation, etc).  3.  Other

  3. a) 3/6 past-meetings to become ELIGIBLE.
     b) 1/3 meetings to remain (or perhaps 4 of the last 12).

- --

---

From: Sam Hartman <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2009 13:03:00 -0500

>>>>> "Eliot" == Eliot Lear <[email-masked]> writes:

    Eliot> Dear all, I don't know about other companies, but mine has
    Eliot> pretty tight travel restrictions right now.  I do not yet
    Eliot> know if I will make the San Francisco IETF or Stockholm.  I
    Eliot> suspect attendance at both will be way down, but it's a
    Eliot> hunch.  If others are in the same position, it will lead to
    Eliot> a potential problem with the NOMCOM, which is that the pool
    Eliot> of eligible volunteers may shrink to an unacceptably low
    Eliot> number.  It seems to me we already had problems getting a
    Eliot> large enough pool in good times.

I'd don't know.  I'd prefer to see SF attendance numbers first.  We do
have a bit of a sliding window.

---

From: Jari Arkko <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2009 23:18:14 +0200

Like Stephen said, we have even more urgent problems if the attendance 
goes way down. Lets focus our immediate energy on that front. I'm sure 
the IAOC and Russ have already spent quite a bit of time on that... 
Also, if this becomes a serious nomcom issue, I suspect the biggest hit 
would be taken for the 2010 nomcom. 2009 nomcom will be decided based on 
attendance between IETF-70 and IETF-74, so even if you stopped coming 
since Minneapolis you'd still be eligible. So I think we have about a 
year to change the rule, if needed.

That being said, the nomcom attendance rule is just a convenient way to 
measure the nomcom member's exposure to the IETF process. Its not the 
only or necessarily even the best way to measure it. From my perspective 
the nomcom member needs to have some experience of the people in current 
positions, experience of other IETF folk that might be selected, and a 
general feeling of what is happening in the IETF, what works well, what 
does not, etc. In other words, a nomcom member should preferably have 
some amount of IETF experience. This could be measured by:

- attendance in meetings
- participation in a design team, conference call, etc.
- activity in the mailing list
- editor, chair, directorate member, etc. role
- authoring a document and taking it through the process

I wouldn't necessarily raise any particular item above the others here. 
But if pressed for another definition than attendance, I'd probably look 
at the last one. FWIW last year there were 494 different people who 
would have qualified. The nice thing about using that rule is that it 
forces the person to go through many things, including getting his work 
accepted by a BOF/WG, working with peer reviews in the WG, dealing with 
IESG reviews, etc. So presumably one would get a lot of experience of 
how the process works, which people seem helpful and so on.

Its not a problem free definition either, of course. For instance, some 
of my documents have co-authors that did major work on the 
specification, but never attended the IETF and would have very little to 
say in nomcom.

Jari