OPEN ISSUE: Nomcom Process

Brian E Carpenter brian at hursley.ibm.com
Fri May 16 18:11:54 CEST 2003


Margaret Wasserman wrote:
> 
> 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?

Without checking the archive, I can't be sure, but I suspect all
of these points have been made on the ietf-nomcom list already.
But Avri is better placed to comment on this.

   Brian


More information about the Problem-statement mailing list