Selecting leadership for process issues

[Marc Blanchet]

I have to say that this starts to worry me:
- I do agree that we need a way to identify leaders of this work to be
neutral to IESG-IAB
- however, if we are going to debate for a long time on how to nominate
leaders of this work which is how we should be more efficient in IETF, I'm
not sure we are accomplishing anything here. By trying to be so neutral, we
will end up doing no real work. I would prefer rough consensus and running
code than "long deliberations and no running code".

I think this mailing list has its constituency, since people interested in
the topic should be here. So we should decide between ourselves.=20

Since we want to be as neutral to the IESG as possible, then the only way
it appears to me is to use nomcom, as suggested before. Maybe (after
approval by nomcom obviously) this mailing list should send nominations for
wg chairs to nomcom and then they decide who.

Marc.

-- lundi, d=E9cembre 02, 2002 21:35:14 +0100 Harald Tveit Alvestrand
<harald@alvestrand.no> wrote/a =E9crit:

>=20
>=20
> --On mandag, desember 02, 2002 13:07:39 -0500 RJ Atkinson
> <rja@extremenetworks.com> wrote:
>=20
>>=20
>> It seems to me that because of its critical importance, this might be a
>> good topic for even broader community input (broader than the set of
>> folks on this list).
>>=20
> so are you suggesting a call for nominations, or a more wide-ranging
> discussion of how we should pick the leader(s) of the effort?
>=20
> two different questions...
>=20
>                Harald