Subject: [ietf-nomcom] The Nominating Committee Process: Eligibility

From: S Moonesamy <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2013 15:29:07 -0700

Hello,

RFC 3777 specifies the process by which members of the Internet 
Architecture Board, Internet Engineering Steering Group and IETF 
Administrative Oversight Committee are selected, confirmed, and recalled.

draft-moonesamy-nomcom-eligibility proposes an update RFC 3777 to 
allow remote contributors to the IETF Standards Process to be 
eligible to serve on NomCom and sign a Recall petition ( 
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-moonesamy-nomcom-eligibility-00 ).

I would appreciate if you could read the draft and comment.

Regards,
S. Moonesamy

---

From: Joel <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2013 18:31:48 -0400

What does it mean to "attend ... IETF meetings remotely ..."
Yours,
Joel

On 6/25/2013 6:29 PM, S Moonesamy wrote:
> draft-moonesamy-nomcom-eligibility proposes an update RFC 3777 to allow
> remote contributors to the IETF Standards Process to be eligible to
> serve on NomCom and sign a Recall petition (
> _______________________________________________
> ietf-nomcom mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-nomcom

---

From: S Moonesamy <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2013 15:37:35 -0700

Hi Joel,
>What does it mean to "attend ... IETF meetings remotely ..."

The IETF allows for remote participation at meetings ( 
http://www.ietf.org/meeting/remote-participation.html ).  It is 
another way to contribute the IETF without being physically present 
at the meeting venue.

Regards,
S. Moonesamy

---

From: Russ Housley <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2013 18:50:17 -0400

SM:

> The IETF allows for remote participation at meetings ( http://www.ietf.org/meeting/remote-participation.html ).  It is another way to contribute the IETF without being physically present at the meeting venue.

Please take a look at the IESG statement:
http://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/nomcom-eligibility-and-day-passes.html

If participating for a full day in an IETF meeting is not sufficient, then I think that hard-to-quantify participation via the the remote participation tools is even less desirable as a qualification.  I think that meeting participation, especially the hard to measure things like hallway conversations, are important to learning the IETF culture.  I think we want the people that are picking our leaders to understand that culture.

Russ

---

From: Joel <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2013 18:50:13 -0400

Lets start with the points of agreement.
The currently defined rule is a very coarse net.  It tries to filter out 
folks without sufficient exposure to the IETF work to have sufficient 
context for judging and selecting the leadership.

There are many folks who believe it is already too coarse, allowing many 
folks with insufficient exposure.

On the other hand, it clearly does exclude some folks with sufficient 
exposure who care about the IETF and are affected by the leadership.  Find

Having said that, as far as I can tell, there simply is not enough 
information exposed to a participant who attends a single WG remotely 
for several IETFs and one face-to-face meeting.

Do we eve know with any meaningful confidence who the remote 
participants are?  I doubt it, particularly if they have not chosen to 
speak or jabber.

Unfortunately, leadership is about interacting with people.  Judging 
leadership is largely about judging the interaction with people.  I have 
trouble seeing how that can be done without understanding the behavior 
as it is experienced face-to-face.

Yours,
Joel

On 6/25/2013 6:37 PM, S Moonesamy wrote:
> http://www.ietf.org/meeting/remote-participation.html ).  It is another
> way to contribute the IETF without being physically present at the
> meeting venue.
>
> Regards,
> S. Moonesamy

---

From: S Moonesamy <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2013 16:08:13 -0700

Hi Russ,
>http://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/nomcom-eligibility-and-day-passes.html

I have read that statement.  In my opinion it is up to NomCom to 
interpret the relevant BCPs.

>If participating for a full day in an IETF meeting is not 
>sufficient, then I think that hard-to-quantify participation via the 
>the remote participation tools is even less desirable as a 
>qualification.  I think that meeting participation, especially the 
>hard to measure things like hallway conversations, are important to 
>learning the IETF culture.  I think we want the people that are 
>picking our leaders to understand that culture.

I'll argue that it would be better to give everyone a fair deal.  If 
a person contributes to the IETF Standards Process he or she be able 
to enjoy the same privileges as other contributors.

If a person is from some remote part of the world and does not have 
the financial means to have that hallway conversation, he/she is not 
eligible to sign a Recall petition.  A person may have understood the 
IETF culture and yet the person is still considered as a second-class 
citizen.  I think that it is better to offer everyone who contributes 
the same opportunity.

Regards,
S. Moonesamy

---

From: "Fred Baker (fred)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2013 23:23:37 +0000

On Jun 25, 2013, at 3:50 PM, Joel <[email-masked]>
 wrote:

> Unfortunately, leadership is about interacting with people.  Judging leadership is largely about judging the interaction with people.  I have trouble seeing how that can be done without understanding the behavior as it is experienced face-to-face.

A point I would add is that the nomcom does some of its work at a face-to-face meeting, and the people it selects will need to meet face-to-face from time to time. If a nomcom candidate is unable or unwilling to attend meetings, I'm not sure that s/he is in a position to comment on those that do.

---

From: S Moonesamy <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2013 16:27:25 -0700

Hi Joel,
>Lets start with the points of agreement.

Ok.

>The currently defined rule is a very coarse net.  It tries to filter 
>out folks without sufficient exposure to the IETF work to have 
>sufficient context for judging and selecting the leadership.

Yes.  The question is whether that filter is successful.

>There are many folks who believe it is already too coarse, allowing 
>many folks with insufficient exposure.

Ok.

>On the other hand, it clearly does exclude some folks with 
>sufficient exposure who care about the IETF and are affected by the 
>leadership.  Find

Ok.

>information exposed to a participant who attends a single WG 
>remotely for several IETFs and one face-to-face meeting.

The same can be said of a person who has attended three meetings.

>participants are?  I doubt it, particularly if they have not chosen 
>to speak or jabber.

If a person has not said or written anything he or she is not a 
contributor (re. IPR discussions).

If we do not have any meaningful confidence that contributions over 
Jabber are valid, then the IETF has a serious IPR problem.

>leadership is largely about judging the interaction with people.  I 
>have trouble seeing how that can be done without understanding the 
>behavior as it is experienced face-to-face.

I respect your opinion.  I'll provide mine below.

It has been said repeatedly that IETF work is done through mailing 
lists.  If we cannot judge interaction with people through that the 
IETF might as well give up on the pretence that IETF work is done 
through mailing lists.

The face-to-face behavior is different from mailing list behavior.  I 
think that mailing list interaction matters more as we spend the most 
part of the year doing that.  If an Area Director, for example, can 
only show leadership in person I doubt that the person will be able 
to do much through email.

It has been said repeatedly that "we don't have to hold meetings in 
Country X for you to be able to attend, you can participate 
remotely".  Are we saying what we believe or is it, a polite excuse?

Regards,
S. Moonesamy

---

From: S Moonesamy <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2013 16:33:27 -0700

Hi Fred,
At 16:23 25-06-2013, Fred Baker (fred) wrote:
>A point I would add is that the nomcom does some of its work at a 
>face-to-face meeting, and the people it selects will need to meet 
>face-to-face from time to time. If a nomcom candidate is unable or 
>unwilling to attend meetings, I'm not sure that s/he is in a 
>position to comment on those that do.

I'll apologize beforehand for asking an unfair question.  Which of 
the following requires work at a face-to-face meeting:

  (a) NomCom

  (b) Eligibility to sign a Recall petition

  (c) IESG

  (d) IAB

  (e) IAOC

  (f) Directorate member

  (g) Working Group Chair

  (h) Working Group Secretary

Regards,
S. Moonesamy

---

From: "Fred Baker (fred)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2013 01:33:26 +0000

On Jun 25, 2013, at 4:33 PM, S Moonesamy <[email-masked]>
 wrote:

> I'll apologize beforehand for asking an unfair question.  Which of the following requires work at a face-to-face meeting:

Not sure what's unfair about it. I'd suggest, if you're really interested, that you job-shadow these people. I can answer because with the exception of a recall committee (which we have never had) I have been in each of those roles, or (PPPEXT WG Secretary) been the chair of a working group that had one.

> (a) NomCom

Nomcoms interview candidates and have meetings at IETF meetings. They also have other meetings, mostly by telephone. A person that doesn't, for whatever reason, participate in IETF meetings would be unable to participate face to face in the face to face meetings.

> (b) Eligibility to sign a Recall petition

RFC 3777 does not require face-to-face meeting in a recall. However, it does requite that

   1.  At any time, at least 20 members of the IETF community, who are
       qualified to be voting members of a nominating committee, may
       request by signed petition (email is acceptable) to the Internet
       Society President the recall of any sitting IAB or IESG member.

and as noted, the nominating committee meets face to face as well as by telephone.

> (c) IESG

The IESG meets both face to face and by telephone. In addition to meetings at the IETF, they hold IESG retreats.

> (d) IAB

The IAB meets both face to face and by telephone. In addition to meetings at the IETF, they hold IESG retreats.

>  (e) IAOC

The IAOC meets both face to face and by telephone. In addition to meetings at the IETF, they hold IESG retreats.

You didn't mention the RSOC, but it also meets face to face at IETF meetings.

> (f) Directorate member

That depends on the directorate. I can tell you about the one I am on. It does a lot of work by email, and meets face to face at IETF meetings.

> (g) Working Group Chair

I won't say that all chairs must show up at every meeting; one of the reasons we have co-chairs is to give us a certain level of flexibility. But at least one of them has to show up, and in general, they all show up.

> (h) Working Group Secretary

Those working groups that have them set their own guidelines for them. They do have to have their finger on the working group's pulse, so to speak, which includes both email and f2f.

---

From: "Fred Baker (fred)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2013 01:40:17 +0000

I committed two typos. Edits inline.

On Jun 25, 2013, at 6:33 PM, Fred Baker <[email-masked]> wrote:

> The IAB meets both face to face and by telephone. In addition to meetings at the IETF, they hold *IAB* retreats.
> 
>> (e) IAOC
> 
> The IAOC meets both face to face and by telephone. In addition to meetings at the IETF, they hold *IAOC* retreats.
> 

----------------------------------------------------
The ignorance of how to use new knowledge stockpiles exponentially. 
   - Marshall McLuhan

---

From: S Moonesamy <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2013 20:53:05 -0700

Hi Fred,
At 18:33 25-06-2013, Fred Baker (fred) wrote:
>Not sure what's unfair about it. I'd suggest, if you're really 
>interested, that you job-

It might be a leading question.  Please note that I read the message 
about "I committed two typos. Edits inline."

> > (a) NomCom
>
>Nomcoms interview candidates and have meetings at IETF meetings. 
>They also have other meetings, mostly by telephone. A person that 
>doesn't, for whatever reason, participate in IETF meetings would be 
>unable to participate face to face in the face to face meetings.

I'll say ok as I have not been part of NomCom.

>and as noted, the nominating committee meets face to face as well as 

Yes.  I read that as meaning that I would not be able to sign a 
Recall petition.  It could be argued that I still have to find the 19 
other members of the IETF.  If I recall correctly the issue of the 
IETF Trust Chair was discussed and it would have gone on if he did 
not step forward with a petition.

I'll highlight that the case of the IETF Trust Chair was one which 
nobody thought would happen.  It did happen even if the person was 
considered to have understood the IETF culture.

> > (c) IESG
>
>The IESG meets both face to face and by telephone. In addition to 
>meetings at the IETF, they hold IESG retreats.
>
> > (d) IAB
>
>The IAB meets both face to face and by telephone. In addition to 
>meetings at the IETF, they hold IESG retreats.
>
> >  (e) IAOC
>
>The IAOC meets both face to face and by telephone. In addition to 
>meetings at the IETF, they hold IESG retreats.

I won't comment about (c), (d) and (e) for now as I have not been on 
any of these bodies.

>You didn't mention the RSOC, but it also meets face to face at IETF meetings.

I intentionally left it out.  I did not apply for that position even 
though I am familiar with the RFC Editor Model Version 1 & 2.  I have 
also participated in the discussions about the Independent 
Submissions Stream.  People were arguing to get rid of that stream.

> > (f) Directorate member
>
>That depends on the directorate. I can tell you about the one I am 
>on. It does a lot of work by email, and meets face to face at IETF meetings.

The one I am on does all the work by email.  I have not met some of 
the members in person.  I'll guess that we all get along as the 
directorate has been working beyond expectations.

> > (g) Working Group Chair
>
>I won't say that all chairs must show up at every meeting; one of 
>the reasons we have co-chairs is to give us a certain level of 
>flexibility. But at least one of them has to show up, and in 
>general, they all show up.

I am currently co-chair.  I have never physically chaired the WG.  I 
recall that John Klensin chaired a WG remotely.  Chris Newman also 
participated remotely in the WG he chaired.

>Those working groups that have them set their own guidelines for 
>them. They do have to have their finger on the working group's 
>pulse, so to speak, which includes both email and f2f.

I was WG Secretary.  It's been mostly remote for me.

On a side note I'll repeat again that I don't think that people are 
not doing enough or that I am better.  We do X because the people 
before us did it that way.  I was discussing with a WG Secretary 
(remotely) and I was pleasantly surprised to see how she organized 
her work.  I told her that I will borrow her idea as it looks more effective.

There is the discussion about inclusiveness.  My take is that the 
IETF is excluding people if it sets requirements without providing a 
clear picture for people to see whether they are absolutely 
necessary.  Bernard and Eliot commented about "new blood".  A strict 
reading of the above means that none of these positions are open to 
people who cannot attend IETF meetings.  If there isn't any scope for 
people to move into a position or higher up, my guess is that people 
will walk away after a while or focus on single issues only.  There 
is a resistance to reviewing the fundamentals even in the face of 
systemic issues.  If nobody takes a critical view of the things 
(please note that I do not mean people) there isn't nothing much 
which can be changed.

Regards,
S. Moonesamy

---

From: "Joel M. Halpern" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2013 00:05:54 -0400

In spite of our claims, when I am explaining to folks I work with how to 
make an impact on the IETF, and how to understand the IETF, I always 
make clear that attending some of the time is necessary.  They don't 
have to coem to every meeting, but if you have not seen the sausage 
making several times, a lot of the discussions by email are very 
difficult to follow.  (Yes, some folks manage.  More power to them.)

And if you are working to advance a document, it is in practice very 
helpful to be at meetings.

Yours,
Joel

On 6/25/2013 11:53 PM, S Moonesamy wrote:
>> Nomcoms interview candidates and have meetings at IETF meetings. They
>> also have other meetings, mostly by telephone. A person that doesn't,
>> for whatever reason, participate in IETF meetings would be unable to
>> participate face to face in the face to face meetings.
>
> Yes.  I read that as meaning that I would not be able to sign a Recall
> petition.  It could be argued that I still have to find the 19 other
> members of the IETF.  If I recall correctly the issue of the IETF Trust
> Chair was discussed and it would have gone on if he did not step forward
> with a petition.
>
> I won't comment about (c), (d) and (e) for now as I have not been on any
> of these bodies.
>
> also participated in the discussions about the Independent Submissions
> Stream.  People were arguing to get rid of that stream.
>
>> > (f) Directorate member
>>
>> That depends on the directorate. I can tell you about the one I am on.
>> It does a lot of work by email, and meets face to face at IETF meetings.
>
> The one I am on does all the work by email.  I have not met some of the
> members in person.  I'll guess that we all get along as the directorate
> has been working beyond expectations.
>
>> > (g) Working Group Chair
>>
>> I won't say that all chairs must show up at every meeting; one of the
>> reasons we have co-chairs is to give us a certain level of
>> flexibility. But at least one of them has to show up, and in general,
>> they all show up.
>
>> Those working groups that have them set their own guidelines for them.
>> They do have to have their finger on the working group's pulse, so to
>> speak, which includes both email and f2f.
>
> On a side note I'll repeat again that I don't think that people are not
> doing enough or that I am better.  We do X because the people before us
> did it that way.  I was discussing with a WG Secretary (remotely) and I
> was pleasantly surprised to see how she organized her work.  I told her
> that I will borrow her idea as it looks more effective.
>
> There is the discussion about inclusiveness.  My take is that the IETF
> is excluding people if it sets requirements without providing a clear
> picture for people to see whether they are absolutely necessary.
> Bernard and Eliot commented about "new blood".  A strict reading of the
> above means that none of these positions are open to people who cannot
> attend IETF meetings.  If there isn't any scope for people to move into
> a position or higher up, my guess is that people will walk away after a
> while or focus on single issues only.  There is a resistance to
> reviewing the fundamentals even in the face of systemic issues.  If
> nobody takes a critical view of the things (please note that I do not
> mean people) there isn't nothing much which can be changed.
>
> Regards,
> S. Moonesamy

---

From: S Moonesamy <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2013 22:18:49 -0700

Hi Joel,
At 21:05 25-06-2013, Joel M. Halpern wrote:
>In spite of our claims, when I am explaining to folks I work with 
>how to make an impact on the IETF, and how to understand the IETF, I 
>always make clear that attending some of the time is 
>necessary.  They don't have to coem to every meeting, but if you 
>have not seen the sausage making several times, a lot of the 
>discussions by email are very difficult to follow.  (Yes, some folks 
>manage.  More power to them.)
>

It basically means that the only way to understand the IETF is to 
have the ability to pay for expensive trips.  This reduces 
participation to people with rich sponsors.  Someone asked why we are 
not seeing more participation from South America and Africa.  One 
explanation would be that if a person would like to participate 
effectively, the person has to leave the region and move to a 
developed country.  It makes the brain drain more acute but that's 
not what we are discussing here.

There are three IAB members from Europe and one from China.  There 
are two IESG members from Europe.  What the IETF is not saying is 
that there will never be any IAB or IESG member from any other region.

There is one IAOC member from Europe.  Everyone else is from the 
United States.  It has always been that way and that's how it will 
be.  The IAOC understands [sic] the visa issues as its members have 
the experience of queuing in the sun and pay large sums of money for a visa.

When I see a question such as:

   "If there is anybody in this mail list from big vendors like Juniper, Cisco,
    Extreme, and others, please let me know what you have done to stimulate
    your engineers from emerging countries to get involved with IETF."

Note: Fred responded to the question.

I am aware that it is the view shared by many people in emerging 
regions.  You won't hear it in the hallway conversations or at the microphone.

The view I am getting from this mailing list is that "people from 
emerging regions are disenfranchised; that's how IETF culture works".

Regards,
S. Moonesamy

---

From: Russ Housley <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2013 09:12:15 -0400

SM:

> I have read that statement.  In my opinion it is up to NomCom to interpret the relevant BCPs.

That is not possible in this case.  The Secretariat needs to tell the NomCom Chair whether a particular volunteer is eligible.  So, this aspect of the rules needs to be nailed down for the Secretariat to do their part is seating NomCom.

Russ

---

From: Joel <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2013 09:34:37 -0400

I appreciate the clarity of your response below, and hope I have 
understood to.

To highlight where I see the disconnect, you are proposing that we 
appoint nomcom members who are lacking critical understanding of how the 
IETF works, in order to bring in better perspective on the needs of the 
folks who are not presently involved.
I would like to see more involvement from more folks i more parts of the 
world wit more diverse sponsors (including making it easier for those 
without sponsors).  But trying to change the culture by picing folks to 
pick leaders who do not understand the existing needs and culture seems 
a recipe for failure.

Put simply, I think we need to come up with good ways to improve the 
various forms of involvement.  The efforts by the IAOC to improve the 
remote participation setup is a step towards that.  I hope that the 
diversity committee will come up with useful steps.  Maybe highlight the 
issue the way you have is a helpful step.  But actually changing the 
rules the way you suggest strikes me as a really bad idea.

Yours,
Joel

On 6/26/2013 1:18 AM, S Moonesamy wrote:
>> In spite of our claims, when I am explaining to folks I work with how
>> to make an impact on the IETF, and how to understand the IETF, I
>> always make clear that attending some of the time is necessary.  They
>> don't have to coem to every meeting, but if you have not seen the
>> sausage making several times, a lot of the discussions by email are
>> very difficult to follow.  (Yes, some folks manage.  More power to them.)
>>
> It basically means that the only way to understand the IETF is to have
> the ability to pay for expensive trips.  This reduces participation to
> people with rich sponsors.  Someone asked why we are not seeing more
> participation from South America and Africa.  One explanation would be
> that if a person would like to participate effectively, the person has
> to leave the region and move to a developed country.  It makes the brain
> drain more acute but that's not what we are discussing here.
>
> There are three IAB members from Europe and one from China.  There are
> two IESG members from Europe.  What the IETF is not saying is that there
> will never be any IAB or IESG member from any other region.
>
> There is one IAOC member from Europe.  Everyone else is from the United
> States.  It has always been that way and that's how it will be.  The
> IAOC understands [sic] the visa issues as its members have the
> experience of queuing in the sun and pay large sums of money for a visa.
>

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2013 07:28:28 -0700

On 6/26/2013 6:34 AM, Joel wrote:
> you are proposing that we appoint nomcom members who are lacking
> critical understanding of how the IETF works,

Joel,

The premise of that sentence is that current selection criteria produce 
nomcom members with a "critical understanding of how the IETF works".

While the current criteria serve to filter out some people lacking that 
understanding, they actually have nothing to do with understanding. 
They do not even require that the nomcom member has actively 
participated in a working group, nevermind having never had direct 
contact with any of the positions being selected by nomcom.

"Attending" IETF meetings does not guarantee any level of knowledge 
about IETF work, yet "attending" is the key criterion.

The selection criteria and the sampling method from the candidate pool 
for nomcom members does tend to produce some members with significant 
understanding, but that's a sampling artifact, rather than being 
assured.  And indeed the composition of some nomcom membership slates 
have had remarkably little "critical understanding of how the IETF works".

d/

-- 
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net

---

From: Joel <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2013 10:31:17 -0400

Yes Dave, I am aware of the bad fit between our current selection 
procedure and our goals.  I noted this in my first note on the topic.

But expanding the pool to folks who have only been to 1 IETF 
face-to-face meeting would seem to make this worse.

Yours,
Joel

On 6/26/2013 10:28 AM, Dave Crocker wrote:
> understanding, they actually have nothing to do with understanding. They
> do not even require that the nomcom member has actively participated in
> a working group, nevermind having never had direct contact with any of
> the positions being selected by nomcom.
>

---

From: S Moonesamy <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2013 06:52:42 -0700

Hi Russ,
At 06:12 26-06-2013, Russ Housley wrote:
>That is not possible in this case.  The Secretariat needs to tell 
>the NomCom Chair whether a particular volunteer is eligible.  So, 
>this aspect of the rules needs to be nailed down for the Secretariat 
>to do their part is seating NomCom.

The IETF Secretariat is supposed to perform administrative 
duties.  It is hired by the IAOC.  If this aspect of the rules is a 
serious problem the IETF Community will likely be able to address it.

I don't think that it is appropriate for me to give you a 
disingenuous answer.  The issue is valid and it will have to be addressed.

Regards,
S. Moonesamy

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2013 07:36:59 -0700

> face-to-face meeting would seem to make this worse.

I completely agree.  Including more people with less knowledge certainly 
cannot help things.

However my point is that criticism of suggestions needs to be based on a 
reasonable agreement about the current state of affairs, so there is 
fair comparison.  My concern was that your sentence that I cited implied 
a far better state of affairs than actually exists.

d/

---

From: Mary Barnes <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2013 09:43:49 -0500

On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 9:31 AM, Joel <[email-masked]> wrote:
> Yes Dave, I am aware of the bad fit between our current selection procedure
> and our goals.  I noted this in my first note on the topic.
>
> But expanding the pool to folks who have only been to 1 IETF face-to-face
> meeting would seem to make this worse.
[MB] I totally agree (having also been a Nomcom chair in the past).  I
firmly believe that we change the selection criteria to ensure we
really do have at least enough folks that have a broad understanding
of and experience in the IETF that members with less experience can
have immediate access to aspects of IETF with which they are less
familiar. There was a draft suggesting this a few years back.  It's
extremely difficult for someone that hasn't had at least one RFC
published to really understand the overall IESG process (and that's
the easy one to figure out).   Due to the confidentiality requirements
of the process, it's much more difficult for less experienced folks to
gather that information outside the Nomcom.
[/MB]

---

From: S Moonesamy <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2013 09:52:56 -0700

Hi Joel,
>I appreciate the clarity of your response below, and hope I have 

I'll comment below.

>appoint nomcom members who are lacking critical understanding of how 
>the IETF works, in order to bring in better perspective on the needs 
>of the folks who are not presently involved.

No, the argument is that NomCom eligibility criteria should not 
discriminate between any contributor to the IETF Standard Process.

It is difficult to find criteria to assess who has critical 
understanding of how the IETF works.  We could, for example, assume 
that WG Chairs, Area Directors and IAB members have the experience 
and understand how the IETF works.  It would look like an 
oligarchy.  Such an approach would take the IETF back to Kobe.

As Dave Crocker mentioned, "attending" IETF meetings does not 
guarantee any level of knowledge about IETF work, yet "attending" is 
the key criterion.

>I would like to see more involvement from more folks i more parts of 
>the world wit more diverse sponsors (including making it easier for 
>those without sponsors).  But trying to change the culture by picing 
>folks to pick leaders who do not understand the existing needs and 
>culture seems a recipe for failure.

I'll step back here; who am I to decide who should or should not have 
the privilege to have a say or has an understanding of the existing 
needs and culture?  I am more comfortable treating everyone as 
equals.  A person only has to pay for three meetings and it is 
assumed that he or she understands IETF culture.

>various forms of involvement.  The efforts by the IAOC to improve 
>the remote participation setup is a step
>  towards that.  I hope that the diversity committee will come up 
> with useful steps.

I cannot comment about the diversity committee internals.  I can 
share my opinion about the topic.

Improving the remote participation setup does not improve 
involvement.  The message that the IETF is sending out is that "you 
can submit drafts and participate remotely but we cannot let you 
decide as you do not understand the IETF.  We say we are open and 
transparent but our culture is based on backroom deals".

Regards,
S. Moonesamy

---

From: Joel <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2013 13:10:53 -0400

From where I sit, as a practical matter, one needs to understand the 
face-to-face interactions in order to lead effectively in the IETF. 
That may be a bad ting.  But changing the leadership before we change 
that ground reality will produce a major problem for the continued 
effective functioning of the organization.

Now, you may disagree with my assertion of what he job requires.  But if 
you accept it, then it is really hard to see how someone who has not 
seen the face-to-face interaction can effectively select leaders who can 
handle that part of the job.  I am not saying that is the only 
qualification.  But it is an important.

Note that although Dave expressed concern about the efficacy of the 
filter we currently use, I don't think he was advocating the removal of 
the filter.

You seem to be asserting that the requirement I describe in the first 
paragraph as a form of discrimination.  In a purely linguistic sense, it 
is.  But that does not change the reality.  Which is why I keep coming 
back to asking to change the reality first.

Yours,
Joel

On 6/26/2013 12:52 PM, S Moonesamy wrote:
> understanding of how the IETF works.  We could, for example, assume that
> WG Chairs, Area Directors and IAB members have the experience and
> understand how the IETF works.  It would look like an oligarchy.  Such
> an approach would take the IETF back to Kobe.
>
> As Dave Crocker mentioned, "attending" IETF meetings does not guarantee
> any level of knowledge about IETF work, yet "attending" is the key
> criterion.
>
> needs and culture?  I am more comfortable treating everyone as equals.
> A person only has to pay for three meetings and it is assumed that he or
> she understands IETF culture.
>
>> remote participation setup is a step
>>  towards that.  I hope that the diversity committee will come up with
>> useful steps.
>
> I cannot comment about the diversity committee internals.  I can share
> my opinion about the topic.
>
> Improving the remote participation setup does not improve involvement.
> The message that the IETF is sending out is that "you can submit drafts
> and participate remotely but we cannot let you decide as you do not
> understand the IETF.  We say we are open and transparent but our culture
> is based on backroom deals".
>
> Regards,
> S. Moonesamy

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2013 10:35:59 -0700

> an approach would take the IETF back to Kobe.

On 6/26/2013 10:10 AM, Joel wrote:>
 > filter we currently use, I don't think he was advocating the removal
 > of the filter.

Since both of you cited my comments and since they were intentionally 
extremely narrow, I'll broaden them just a bit:

1. There is no reasonable method that can ensure high levels of relevant 
expertise on Nomcom; the best we can attempt is some sort of highly 
flawed approximation(s).

2. I think the current, single, simplistic criterion of showing up at 3 
recent meetings is massively flawed and guarantees occasionally having 
nomcoms lacking any meaningful expertise.  And yes, I said guarantees.

3. Having /some/ people chosen by that simplistic criteria has the 
benefit of genetic variation.  All sorts of unexpected people can show 
up and participate, offering wildly different perspectives.  That's it's 
strength and that's it's weakness.  I think there is merit in schemes 
that display both strengths and weaknesses, but only if both are 
attended to.

4. To assure that there is at least some specific expertise amongst 
voting nomcom members, at least some members of nomcom need to be 
selected with a method that requires that expertise.  In the case of 
nomcom, the most important expertise is direct knowledge of how things 
are actually managed, both well and poorly.  In my view, the nomcoms 
that I've been around that had a solid amount of that experience had far 
better evaluation and deliberation processes than those that had less of 
that experience.

5. We currently do nothing that attends to the problem of #2.

6. The proposal that I floated some years ago was to allocate /a 
portion/ of the nomcom membership to a pool of nomcom volunteers who had 
a history of principal contribution.  One can debate the details of 
course, but plausible experience could be RFC author, WG Chair, member 
of IAB, IESG or IAOC.  That's just an exemplar list; I'm not trying to 
propose it as /the/ list.

7. I agree that a history of active participation in f2f meetings 
provides experiences that are not otherwise possible and that these can 
greatly improve one's ability to assess candidates for IETF positions.

8. Showing up at f2f nomcom sessions strikes me as essential; nomcom 
workings are difficult enough.

9. One could easily imagine that previous experience at having been a 
principal, with continued active participation, but a lack of recent 
attendance, could mean that a nomcom volunteer is actually a far better 
nomcom participant than many of those who qualify by the current 
simplistic criterion.

d/

---

From: "Adrian Farrel" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2013 18:50:16 +0100

Curiously...

> propose it as /the/ list.

...actually also reduces the panic about allowing wider NomCom participation.

For example (and deliberately using specific and arguable examples for the sake
of clarity), we could reserve 4 places for people from the list Dave gave as an
example, pick 4 from the current method (possibly excluding those on the current
list), and allow 2 from a wider, less qualified or remote-attender pool.

I find it interesting that the competing tensions of "make sure there is a set
of more experienced people on NomCom" and "widen NomCom to allow broader
participation" might be solved by the same measure.

Adrian

---

From: S Moonesamy <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2013 11:35:02 -0700

Hi Joel,
At 10:10 26-06-2013, Joel wrote:
>You seem to be asserting that the requirement I describe in the 
>first paragraph as a form of discrimination.  In a purely linguistic 
>sense, it is.  But that does not change the reality.  Which is why I 
>keep coming back to asking to change the reality first.

The reality is that some working groups are not working and it has 
been like that since several meetings.  The reality is that one or 
more directorates have not been working since several years and 
nothing was done about that.

The reality is that NomCom had to select an Area Director and the 
consent of the IAB was required.  There was another call for 
candidates.  A member of the IAB was selected as Area 
Director.  Please note that I am not inferring that the person did 
anything inappropriate.  Let's assume that you were one of the 
candidates who was not chosen.  You might feel slighted by 
that.  This is where you decide to go incommunicado instead of doing 
the working group chair work.

The reality is when I ask you for help to find a mentor you go out of 
your way to do so.  When somebody who has been to many meetings tells 
me that he/she had difficulty finding mentors I think that the is a 
problem somewhere.

let me share a story I read:

   'I was having tea with A company when we heard a lot of shouting and went
    to investigate.  We found our men and the Germans standing on 
their respective
    parapets.  Suddenly a salvo arrived, but did no damage. Naturally 
both sides got
    down and our men started swearing at the Germans. All at once a 
brave German got
    on to his parapet and shouted out "We are very sorry about that; 
we hope no one
    was hurt. It is not our fault, it is that damned Prussian artillery".'

The above is described as "live and let live".  It is about 
non-aggressive cooperative behavior that happened a long time ago.

Regards,
S. Moonesamy

---

From: S Moonesamy <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2013 12:07:32 -0700

Hi Adrian,
>...actually also reduces the panic about allowing wider NomCom participation.

Thanks for injecting this into the discussion.

>list), and allow 2 from a wider, less qualified or remote-attender pool.

The community might require scientific evidence about why these 
numbers were chosen. :-)

>participation" might be solved by the same measure.

My quick reaction would be that the goals oppose each 
other.  Thinking of it more, I would say that the set of more 
experienced people would increase over the long term while bringing 
in more participation.

Regards,
S. Moonesamy

---

From: S Moonesamy <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2013 11:55:26 -0700

Hi Dave,
At 10:35 26-06-2013, Dave Crocker wrote:
>Since both of you cited my comments and since they were 
>intentionally extremely narrow, I'll broaden them just a bit:

I should have picked the entire message or provided context.  Sorry 
about that.

>1. There is no reasonable method that can ensure high levels of 
>relevant expertise on Nomcom; the best we can attempt is some sort 
>of highly flawed approximation(s).

Yes.

>2. I think the current, single, simplistic criterion of showing up 
>at 3 recent meetings is massively flawed and guarantees occasionally 
>having nomcoms lacking any meaningful expertise.  And yes, I said guarantees.

Yes.

>benefit of genetic variation.  All sorts of unexpected people can 
>show up and participate, offering wildly different 
>perspectives.  That's it's strength and that's it's weakness.  I 
>think there is merit in schemes that display both strengths and 
>weaknesses, but only if both are attended to.

I'll highlight a point "it can be a strength and it can be a 
weakness".  I am not disagreeing btw.

>nomcom, the most important expertise is direct knowledge of how 
>things are actually managed, both well and poorly.  In my view, the 
>nomcoms that I've been around that had a solid amount of that 
>experience had far better evaluation and deliberation processes than 
>those that had less of that experience.

I'll defer to you as you have been part of NomCom.

>5. We currently do nothing that attends to the problem of #2.

Yes.

>portion/ of the nomcom membership to a pool of nomcom volunteers who 
>had a history of principal contribution.  One can debate the details 
>of course, but plausible experience could be RFC author, WG Chair, 
>member of IAB, IESG or IAOC.  That's just an exemplar list; I'm not 
>trying to propose it as /the/ list.

I am not sure whether I read that proposal.

>9. One could easily imagine that previous experience at having been 
>a principal, with continued active participation, but a lack of 
>recent attendance, could mean that a nomcom volunteer is actually a 
>far better nomcom participant than many of those who qualify by the 
>current simplistic criterion.

This one is interesting.  I would say that the above rhymes with the 
word "participatory".  My sense is that you said something which I 
have been unable to explain.

Regards,
S. Moonesamy

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2013 12:14:06 -0700

> I should have picked the entire message or provided context.  Sorry

But I wasn't complaining.  In fact my original comment offered very 
little context, because I was trying to be quite narrow in the comment.

I merely took the two references as an excuse for me to elaborate 
further in this morning's note.

> I am not sure whether I read that proposal.

It was a long time ago.  My summary here contained its essential elements.

>> attendance, could mean that a nomcom volunteer is actually a far
>> better nomcom participant than many of those who qualify by the
> word "participatory".  My sense is that you said something which I have
> been unable to explain.

I'd apologize for having said something useful, but then you'd probably 
think I was complaining...

d/

---

From: S Moonesamy <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2013 12:27:36 -0700

Hi Dave,
At 12:14 26-06-2013, Dave Crocker wrote:
>I'd apologize for having said something useful, but then you'd 
>probably think I was complaining...

Actually, no, I think that you said something very useful and I did 
not read it as a complaint.  I cannot explain it in words.  I am not 
sure whether the following conveys what I am trying to say: "I think 
that you stumbled upon something here".

Regards,
S. Moonesamy

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2013 12:39:20 -0700

On 6/26/2013 12:27 PM, S Moonesamy wrote:
>  I am not sure
> whether the following conveys what I am trying to say: "I think that you
> stumbled upon something here".

Given the amount of stumbling I do, it's inevitable that I would 
eventually stumble onto /something/...

d/

ps. I'm very glad this mailing list doesn't post a count of individuals' 
submissions, the way that's done for the IETF list...

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2013 20:22:57 -0400

Folks, I think much of the discussion of this proposal misses
the point, or at least the point as I see it.  It is easy to say
"won't work" or to complain about details.   I'm not even sure
the discussion belongs on the Nomcom list.   I think we should
move up a level and consider two things.  First, the IETF has
been repeating for years, in part as one of our reasons for
claiming superiority to other SDOs who want to operate in the
Internet space, that one can fully participate in the work of
the IETF without coming to meetings.   I hope we still mean
that.  If we don't, it may be time to revise what we say about
ourselves.  Second, in recent months, we've had extensive
discussions about diversity in IETF participation.  Some people
believe that we have a big problem, others believe that we have
no problem at all, and many people lie somewhere in between, but
there seems to be general agreement that, in principle, at least
a reasonable level of diversity is A Good Thing.  After many
discussions with current and would-be participants in many parts
of the world outside North America, Western Europe, and a small
cluster of Japanese and Chinese companies and organizations, I
believe that, if we want diversity (and diversity is not just a
code phrase for "women from North America and Western Europe")
then we had better get used to people who frequently participate
remotely.  

If those claims and assumptions are true, then the real issue
isn't the details of Subramanian's I-D  (that I-D, IMO, is not
much
more flawed than many first-version I-Ds) but how much we can
open up the IETF process to meaningful participation by people
who mostly participate remotely or whether we have no choice
other than to disenfranchise them in important ways.

In that light, "organizational component XYZ frequently meets
face to face, therefore no one can be involved there until they
attend most meetings face to face" is far less interesting
than an examination of whether that particular amount of face
time is really essential to the tasks of that component.  In
some cases -- for example, I believe the IESG is one of them--
the answer will be "yes".  In others, the answer may be "well,
some of that is necessary, but we ought to be able to reduce the
number and/or the fraction of the group that needs to be
present".  

Similarly, our tying eligibility to sign a recall petition to
Nomcom eligibility was a matter of convenience at the time, but
unless there are good reasons why a mostly-remote participate
cannot be as injured or aggrieved as one who attends meetings
more regularly, maybe requiring that all 20 of those who are
required to endorse a recall petition is unnecessary and,
indeed, unfair.  I note in that regard that we do not impose an
attendance requirement on the filing of appeals: if some of the
hyperbole of the last few days about the importance of meeting
attendance were taken to its logical conclusion, we would impose
precisely such a restriction (pragmatically, that would have
saved us several nuisance appeals over the years, but I hope we
all agree that fairness is more important).  I don't know if the
recall procedure needs adjustment or if the right adjustment is
dialing back the minimum qualifications for endorsing a recall
petition or adjusting the number of people who must satisfy the
current requirements and allowing some number of virtual
signatures under some other requirement, but I think the
question deserves consideration.

Finally, I think we should recognize, as some people have noted,
that "3 meetings our of 5" is a lousy surrogate for "understands
the IETF culture and how the IETF works".  Many of us have
observed that some people "get it" without attending a single
meeting, some after one meeting, and that, for some, three (or
even five) consecutive meetings is not nearly sufficient.  Maybe
that surrogate measurement has been good enough in the past, but
consider what would happen if, say, Phill Gross took an active
interest in a WG or two, participated remotely, and maybe
attended a meeting or two.  We might plausibly decide that we
didn't want him on the Nomcom but I doubt that anyone could
claim with a straight face that the fact that he hadn't attended
three of the last five meetings meant that he didn't understand
how the IETF worked.  The same thing could be said about other,
more recent, "dropouts" from regular attendance -- Mike O'Dell,
Frank Kastenholz, Joyce Reynolds, Jeff Schiller, April Marine,
John Crowcroft, Craig Partridge, and a few others come
immediately to mind.

There are a lot of very smart people in this community.  Let's
try to think about how to adjust the rules and processes to make
full involvement by people who don't attend many IETF meetings
but who understand the community and really do participate
possible.  If we aren't willing to do that, probably we should
stop wasting time discussing diversity and inclusion of
additional communities.   Or perhaps we should wait for an
appeal of either BCP 10 or some Nomcom result on the grounds
that, given our statements about non-meeting participation, the
selection rules are manifestly unfair to significant portions of
the community.  Personally, I'd rather than we think creatively
about the situation and get on top of things first.

best,
   john

---

From: S Moonesamy <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2013 18:46:42 -0700

>move up a level and consider two things.  First, the IETF has

I think that the discussion belongs on the IETF discussion list.

Yes.

Yes.

>other than to disenfranchise them in important ways.

We can rationalize why we have no choice other than to disenfranchise 
some participants or we can do something meaningful.  When there 
isn't meaningful participation people get frustrated, people get 
angry, people walk away.  None of those, in my opinion, make the IETF 
process better; what happens is the contrary.  It is very difficult 
to reach agreement when people believe that they are being treated unfairly.

>number and/or the fraction of the group that needs to be

The discussion has been about "this is how we do things" instead of 
taking an open-minded approach where we question whether it is really 
necessary to do things that way.  Please note that I am not inferring 
that the people on this list are not open-minded.  What I mean is to 
take an external view and try to put in less effort to achieve the 
same or better results.

>question deserves consideration.

The IAB Chair and IETF Chair once stated that:

   "We believe there is little doubt that, by any measure, IETF satisfies
    the requirements for openness, due process, an appeals process and
    consensus"

Due process is a fundamental principle of fairness.  The IETF can set 
up barriers to leave less room for appeals and recall petitions or it 
can look at it as a principle of fairness where an aggrieved party 
has a recourse if the party would like a decision to be reconsidered.

>John Crowcroft, Craig Partridge, and a few others come

I note that the current process also disenfranchises people who have 
been attending IETF meetings since a long time.

>There are a lot of very smart people in this community.  Let's

I strongly agree.

>about the situation and get on top of things first.

It is not constructive to discuss about diversity if IAB and IESG 
members are not willing to ensure that participants are given the 
means to contribute to the maximum extent possible.

Regards,
S. Moonesamy

---

From: Joel <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2013 22:07:10 -0400

As a minor point, I would probably be significantly more supportive of a 
step that relaxed the rules for recall signers.  Being involved is much 
more important than knowing the culte for the question of judging 
whether someone has done something they shouldn't ave.

Yours,
Joel

PS: Addressing the efficacy of remote participation is a fine thing.  It 
is not something I have a clue how to do, and not a topic for the nomcom 
list.

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2013 03:41:17 -0400

--On Wednesday, June 26, 2013 18:46 -0700 S Moonesamy
<[email-masked]> wrote:

>...
> We can rationalize why we have no choice other than to
> disenfranchise some participants or we can do something
> meaningful.  When there isn't meaningful participation people
> get frustrated, people get angry, people walk away.  None of
> those, in my opinion, make the IETF process better; what
> happens is the contrary.  It is very difficult to reach
> agreement when people believe that they are being treated
> unfairly.

One small addition which I would have mentioned except that its
most recent incarnation came up after I had written and sent my
note.

People here have essentially claimed that we don't know how to
define "participant" except in terms of meeting registration
attendance.   Yet, for IPR purposes, we are comfortable defining
participation in terms of Contributions and Contributions
certainly do not require meeting attendance (see recent
discussion on the ietf-ipr list).  That inconsistency,
especially when it works to drag more "participants" in where
our IPR policies are concerned but to exclude where leadership
selection and related issues are concerned is the sort of things
that amuses lawyers.  We should not be amused, nor should we
seek to amuse them. 

While some Contributions are obviously more valuable and
relevant than others, perhaps one of the tools we haven't
explored as part of a model of adequate participation is our
Contribution definition.

best,
    john

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2013 04:00:40 -0400

--On Wednesday, June 26, 2013 22:07 -0400 Joel
<[email-masked]> wrote:

> As a minor point, I would probably be significantly more
> supportive of a step that relaxed the rules for recall
> signers.  Being involved is much more important than knowing
> the culte for the question of judging whether someone has done
> something they shouldn't ave.

For whatever it is worth, I agree.

At the same time, I think that, if we want broader and more
diverse participation, including active participation from those
who don't regularly attend meetings it would be highly desirable
for Nomcoms to consider sensitivity to those issues as one of
many factors in selecting members of leadership groups,
especially the IESG and IAOC.  As has been regularly pointed out
in "diversity" discussions, having someone who is not a member
of a particular group speak for and represent that group is
rarely optimal.

Since I've encouraged others to think creatively, let me mention
a quick thought:   If we conclude that effective Nomcom
membership requires physical attendance at a majority of recent
meetings and physical attendance at all meetings during that
Nomcom's term (I'm not convinced, but that is another matter),
would the effectiveness of the Nomcom be improved by adding a
special member who was selected using the usual mechanism but
drawn from a pool consisting of volunteers from the portion of
the community who had made multiple observable contributions but
who didn't meet the meeting attendance criteria?  Those special
members might not be allowed to vote (consistent with "effective
Nomcom membership") but, unlike liaisons, would be able to
participate in all discussions and evaluations of possible
candidates.

Just a thought.

> PS: Addressing the efficacy of remote participation is a fine
> thing.  It is not something I have a clue how to do, and not a
> topic for the nomcom list.

Perhaps someone needs to decide to move all or part of this
discussion to the IETF list.  Until and unless that is done, I
don't think this list can dodge the apparent inconsistency I
mentioned in my note of a few minutes ago.

best,
   john

---

From: S Moonesamy <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2013 02:37:06 -0700

At 19:07 26-06-2013, Joel wrote:
>thing.  It is not something I have a clue how to do, and not a topic 
>for the nomcom list.

Spencer mentioned the following last month:

   "participants have to learn how to collaborate with folks"

   "it's still not easy for me to have conversations with total strangers.
    That's not a cultural challenge, and it's not a language challenge,
    but it is a challenge"

I don't have the clue to make remote participation better.  If "we" 
collaborate we might be able to find solutions.

>of a particular group speak for and represent that group is

One of the problems with "diversity" discussions is that we get into 
representativity.  The question came up in one of my non-IETF 
roles.  My stance was that I do not represent a group or claim to 
speak on their behalf; I am accountable to them and everybody else.

>participate in all discussions and evaluations of possible

My concern is that once we have a different pool or treat different 
parts of the community differently it can be argued that there should 
be more pools.  Groups that feel slighted will ask for special members.

>mentioned in my note of a few minutes ago.

I'll start a thread on that list.

Regards,
S. Moonesamy

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2013 08:30:23 -0400

--On Wednesday, June 26, 2013 12:07 -0700 S Moonesamy
<[email-masked]> wrote:

>> I find it interesting that the competing tensions of "make
>> sure there is a set of more experienced people on NomCom" and
>> "widen NomCom to allow broader participation" might be solved
>> by the same measure.
> 
> My quick reaction would be that the goals oppose each other.
> Thinking of it more, I would say that the set of more
> experienced people would increase over the long term while
> bringing in more participation.

In principle, yes.  In practice, I think it is unlikely unless
we also figured out how to reduce somewhat the size and length
of the time commitment (f2f or otherwise) required of Nomcom
members.  Note that those "more experienced people" include
three groups:

	* those whose time is already heavily committed to
	leadership roles such as the ones Dave cited.
	
	* those who have some desire or expectation of being
	tapped for leadership roles for which Nomcom membership
	would make them ineligible.
	
	* those who have withdrawn from active IETF
	participation (including physical presence) due to lack
	of time, commitments elsewhere, or general disgust.

There are other groups too, but I don't know how large they are.
I am pretty confident that few, if any, of the people from the
above groups are likely to volunteer for the Nomcom unless we
figure out how to lower the time commitment (or at least the f2f
commitment) required.  As with the more traditional leadership
positions, reversing the trends of recent years and reducing the
time and other commitments would be likely to broaden the
candidate pool.  By contrast, and by analogy to the "don't
expect people from one group to be able to fully understand and
represent the perspective of another" part of the diversity
discussion, a very large Nomcom time commitment is likely to
reduce the people on the Nomcom who understand the value of
considering people for the IESG, IAB, and IAOC who are be
committed to limiting the time commitment of those roles.

    john

---

From: S Moonesamy <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2013 04:50:28 -0700

>         would make them ineligible.

There is the cultural factor here.  Some people with the desire or 
expectation of being tapped for a role will not step forward to say 
so or provide information to indicate their desire or expectation.

>         of time, commitments elsewhere, or general disgust.

I don't know how significant the general disgust is.  I would 
describe it as a silent group which could protest.  This is where 
things can be unpredictable.

Yes.

>committed to limiting the time commitment of those roles.

The message from the floor a few months ago was "body X is not 
representative of us".  There was a message about affiliation last 
year.  The observation was that:

   'the top four companies on this list have contributed more than half of
    the NomCom volunteers. The top three have contributed twice as many
    (44) as all of the entities that contributed only one (22).'

and the opinion was that:

   'the NomCom would benefit from having many "independent" members.  While
    that could happen (yay, randomness), the odds here don't look great.'

There were appearances of biased voting membership previously.

If the time commitment and funding are the limiting factors the IETF 
can end up with another situation similar to the Transport AD one.

Regards,
S. Moonesamy