OPEN ISSUE: Nomcom Process

[James M Galvin]

On Fri, 16 May 2003, Margaret Wasserman wrote:

    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

I know we're not supposed to talk about solutions but during this
iteration of the NOMCOM document it was decided to spell out the
responsibilitites of all the parties in the process.  Of interest here
is the liaisons and the past Chair, who's responsibilities include
watching over the process and reporting anomalies.  No, it does not
"open" up the process but it does ensure the internal, normally
confidential workings of the NOMCOM have some review.

We even added a dispute resolution process for addressing any issues
that may arise.

	     and/or does not include
                     enough input from non-leaders within the
                     community.

I'm having trouble believing this is really a problem.  While it is true
the actual discussions of the NOMCOM are confidential, recent NOMCOMs in
particular have worked very hard to get community input.  There are
multiple paths for getting input into the NOMCOM -- email to committee
email address or to individual members via email or directly (they wear
orange dots at IETF meetings) -- and the NOMCOM solicits for input in
multiple ways (multiple requests to ietf, ietf-announce, and wgchairs).

There's also the fact that the NOMCOM operates at a "regular time."  If
you are part of the community you know this and when it's time it is not
that difficult to get input into the process.

             - The nomcom shouldn't include IESG/IAB liaisons, as
                     this gives the IESG/IAB too much influence on
                     the selection process.

This is a management problem inside the NOMCOM.  Certainly a liaison
could dominate a discussion but (again with the solutions, I apologize)
hopefully setting responsibilities for the players and creating a
process for resolving disputes will improve the latter part of the
issue.

             - The number of qualified people willing to serve on
                     the IESG is too small -- perhaps due to the
                     level of commitment required?

This is not a NOMCOM process issue, per se, but I agree it is an IETF
issue.  In my opinion it is not an issue for the NOMCOM working group to
address.


    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?

I believe the NOMCOM working group has addressed the first two issues you
suggested in this iteration.  Personally, I do not believe the last
issue is a NOMCOM working group issue but I agree it is a problem to be
addressed by some working group.

Jim