OPEN ISSUE: Nomcom Process

[Bound, Jim]

I do not believe we should take this discussion to the NOMCOM that
process needs fixing too.  Our job is to document the problem and the
NOMCOM has problems.  I do believe sending mail to the nomcom with
specifics is fine but the problems there should be aired here too as
they affect the very fabric of the only open process we have for the
community to be able to add or remove IESG members.

Now if someone would like me to send my issue to NOMCOM please send me
what mail list to send to I have not the desire or time to get into
another WG debate.  My issue is I want the IESG out of the room at
nomcom meetings unless called in for clarifications.  They should NOT be
present during the deliberations it is wrong and as I said it is like
having the government in the voting booth with me.  It is
philosophically and morally wrong for the IESG to be in that room.
Period.  Also the statements around existing IESG members should receive
special treatment during deliberations is completely bogus they should
be judged on their results, their action, and their ability to guide an
Area to success.  If they did a bad job they should be removed (in
multiple areas) if they did a good job they should be kept given that a
more qualified candidate does not show up.  The above two issues are a
problem because they smell of academic tenure viewpoint and the IETF is
not an academic exercise or institution but a standards body that is
suppose to produce results and work.  If that is not done the IETF has
failed.

/jim

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Margaret Wasserman [mailto:mrw at windriver.com] 
> Sent: Thursday, May 15, 2003 11:44 AM
> To: problem-statement at alvestrand.no
> Subject: OPEN ISSUE: Nomcom Process
> 
> 
> 
> The process document currently says:
> 
> >We may also need to modify our Nomcom processes so that IETF 
> >participants who are not part of the IETF leadership can have more 
> >visibility into the Nomcom process and more proportional input into 
> >leadership selection.  [OPEN ISSUE: Do we have consensus 
> that these are 
> >real problems that need to be solved?]
> 
> I believe that this is a real problem, and that we should 
> modify our Nomcom processes to do two (related) things:
> 
>          - Give the community more visibility into the
>                  process.
>          - Get more feedback on potential candidates from
>                  the community.  Currently, some candidates
>                  are discussed with the leaders (IESG/IAB
>                  members and WG chairs), but the greater
>                  community doesn't even know who is being
>                  considered.
> 
> Margaret
> 
> 
> 
>