OPEN ISSUE: Nomcom Process

[Brian E Carpenter]

Jonne.Soininen at nokia.com wrote:
> 
> Hi everybody,
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: ext Bound, Jim [mailto:Jim.Bound at hp.com]
> > Sent: Friday, May 16, 2003 4:29 PM
> >
> > 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.
> 
> I think as well that the NOMCOM process (as any other process) should be discussed here in this WG. I would say that we have much more information in our hands than we did when the NOMCOM WG started. It may end up doing bit of the work again, and if we come to the same conclusion then fine. However, I believe its worth the trouble. I also thought that the NOMCOM work started with the notion that there is not much to change, and I believe that assumption is not as valid as it was at that time.

Jonne, this really puzzles me. I haven't seen any nomcom issue raised on
this list that hasn't been debated and decided on the ietf-nomcom list.
As Melinda says, if you think there are *new* issues that the nomcom WG 
has not discussed, the ietf-nomcom list is the place to raise them
(urgently, given the status of their draft).

Obviously, if we changed the underlying constitution of the IETF, we
would have to adapt the nomcom process accordingly, but we aren't 
anywhere near that point today.

    Brian