Selecting leadership for process issues

John C Klensin john-ietf@jck.com
Tue, 03 Dec 2002 13:59:56 -0500


--On Tuesday, 03 December, 2002 11:43 -0500 RJ Atkinson
<rja@extremenetworks.com> wrote:

> On Tuesday, Dec 3, 2002, at 10:03 America/Montreal, Margaret
> Wasserman wrote:
>> The nomcom approach also has the advantage that they know who
>> is being considered for IESG/IAB roles, and can make sure
>> that we don't select a leader who is then placed on the IESG
>> or the IAB in March...
> 
> That is a very very good point.  And Nomcom are the *only*
> ones who can know that until March, so if we want to be
> timely, the Nomcom approach is likely the best one to try
> first...

Hmm.  In other discussions, we have been told that Nomcoms quite
often makes fairly late assessments of possible candidates and
then goes recruiting.   To the extent that is true, they might
not know until March, or at least sometime in January or
February, either.   I don't object to having the Nomcom make the
choice, but, if our goal were primarily to prevent the lead
cat-herder in this effort from being selected for the IESG or
IAB, we can do it by applying the same rule that is applied to
the Nomcom itself.  I.e., no one chosen can be a candidate for
either an IAB or IESG position.   If that rule is applied, then
we don't need the Nomcom to make the selection (although that
might still be desirable for other reasons).

    john