OPEN ISSUE: Nomcom Process

[Margaret Wasserman]

Hi Brian,

At 03:00 PM 5/16/2003 +0200, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>I would add that this was discussed *extensively* in the
>current nomcom WG and there was no consensus to publish
>the names.
>
>I would suggest that it would be ironic if the problem-statement
>WG were to commit the sin of re-discussing a solution that another
>WG has recently discussed and abandoned.

I think that ironic is too mild... perhaps "counter-productive"?

However, there are many ways to increase community input and
visibility into the process without publishing the names of all
of the candidates...  For instance, the criteria that will be
used to select candidates could be published and reviewed by
the community.  Or, the final slates could be published for
community comment before being approved.  I don't know whether
the nomcom WG has considered these alternatives.

The real question is whether we think that there is a problem
here that needs to be solved.  On the problem list, people
identified three problems with the nomcom:

         - The process is too closed and/or does not include
                 enough input from non-leaders within the
                 community.
         - The nomcom shouldn't include IESG/IAB liaisons, as
                 this gives the IESG/IAB too much influence on
                 the selection process.
         - The number of qualified people willing to serve on
                 the IESG is too small -- perhaps due to the
                 level of commitment required?

Since we have a WG currently evaluating the Nomcom process, do
you think that the people who raised these issues should just
take them to that WG?

Margaret