Subject: Re: One more comments on the process draft

From: Scott Bradner <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2003 11:19:00 -0400 (EDT)

fwiw - I think that this is a better concept than the N out of M by
itself - I might tweak the numbers (3 out of 7 with the one at least
7 meetings ago) but I think this formulation would better ensure 
that nomcom members understood the IETF they would be selecting leaders for.

Scott

------
So how about the following as a suggestion:

   15.  in order to volunteer, Members of the IETF community must
        have attended at least 4 of the last 8 IETF meetings and the first
        attendance must be at least 3 years prior to the date on which the
        solicitation for nominating
        committee volunteers was submitted for distribution to the IETF
        community.

---

From: "Joel M. Halpern" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2003 11:34:08 -0400

How important is this?
We NEED this document ASAP.
Making a change like this is something I would like time to think about.
Can we defer this to the next rev?  Please?
Yours,
Joel

At 11:19 AM 7/16/2003 -0400, Scott Bradner wrote:

>----------------------------------------------------------------
>To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription
>manager: <http://lists.elistx.com/subscribe>

---

From: Lixia Zhang <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2003 08:55:11 -0700

> We NEED this document ASAP.

I did apologize for being late, didn¹t I :-)

> Can we defer this to the next rev?  Please?

Your choice. I can resend the same msg when the draft comes out for IETF
last call, if it is too late for this group.

Lixia

---

From: Robert Elz <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2003 23:35:07 +0700

Date:        Wed, 16 Jul 2003 08:55:11 -0700
    From:        Lixia Zhang <[email-masked]>
    Message-ID:  <[email-masked]>

  | Your choice. I can resend the same msg when the draft comes out for IETF
  | last call, if it is too late for this group.

That is probably the right thing to do.

We don't get nearly enough documents pushed back to working groups
for revision from IETF last call, and we should get more.  This one
may as well be one of them.

Of course, that would mean even greater delays, but if that's the
WG decision, that's fine.

kre

ps: I think Lixia's proposal (or Scott's revision of it) is a definite
step forward.

---

From: Michael StJohns <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2003 12:48:06 -0400

Actually, unless someone is about to leave the IAB or IESG, we actually 
don't need this until the new Nomcom is ready to be selected.  Let's get it 
right, rather than focusing on getting it now.

Mike

---

From: RJ Atkinson <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2003 17:09:12 -0400

On Wednesday, Jul 16, 2003, at 12:48 America/Montreal, Michael StJohns 
wrote:

> Actually, unless someone is about to leave the IAB or IESG, we 
> actually don't need this until the new Nomcom is ready to be selected. 
>  Let's get it right, rather than focusing on getting it now.
>
> Mike

Agree.
This document really is important to get correct.

Ran

---

From: "Joel M. Halpern" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2003 03:45:56 -0400

We appear to be trying to get a perfect document.
Given the nature of the nomcom process, there is probably no such thing as 
a perfect process for it.

We had the discussion about what the conditions for nomcom volunteers ought 
to be.
The proposal is not a small change.  It is a major philosophical change in 
the way we look at nomcom participants and eligibility.

While it is technically still within the working group process to change 
what we have written, we better have a very good reason to do so.
At the moment, we are going to be lucky to get this document out of the 
IESG by August 15.  The new nomcom chair (whomsoever as that may be) will 
be issueing the call for volunteers before that.  If we put much delay on 
this document, the nomcom chair will have to make the selection before we 
have a new document.  Since the old document does not permit using 
different rules that are still pending, that would mean the old rules would 
still apply.

Do we really want to cause an effective 1 year slip in getting better 
rules?  We can go back after the document is approved and start another 
round if we really think we need to make additional changes.

Yours,
Joel M. Halpern

At 05:09 PM 7/16/2003 -0400, RJ Atkinson wrote:

>On Wednesday, Jul 16, 2003, at 12:48 America/Montreal, Michael StJohns wrote:
>
>>don't need this until the new Nomcom is ready to be selected.  Let's get 
>>it right, rather than focusing on getting it now.
>>
>>Mike
>
>Agree.

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2003 10:52:09 +0200

I agree that this issue was thoroughly debated and closed.

I also think the current formulation is OK. While I have great
sympathy with people who want to participate in the IETF but have 
very limited travel budgets, I think *recent* f2f interaction is very 
important as a Nomcom qualification. So my hum is for no change to 
the draft.

   Brian

---

From: Lixia Zhang <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2003 02:16:20 -0700

> important as a Nomcom qualification.

Full agreement.

My concern is a different one: one year is too short a period to both gain
an adequate understanding of the IETF process and, perhaps more importantly,
to get to know individual participants well enough for nomcom purpose.  Over
the years I have talked to many new comers, a common response is a feeling
of somewhat lost in the sea for the first couple times.

I've also served on nomcom twice myself, and my observation was that junior
people (not in age but in IETF participation) who did not know much about
the candidates deferred to a few strong voices of those who know better.  We
want the nomcom results coming from all 10 voting members (at least majority
of them for each candidate), not a small subset plus nodding heads.

But I MUST apologize again that my comments were late.  As I said I would be
happy to raise them during IETF last call if this group feels it's too late
to consider.

> So my hum is for no change to the draft.
> 
>  Brian