On Jul 18, 2010, at 2:06 PM, Dave CROCKER wrote: > Lixia, > > On 7/18/2010 1:14 PM, Lixia Zhang wrote: >> The comment: I support the idea of having a second 'expertise' pool of >> volunteers, but I wonder where comes this suggestion of selecting *3* members >> from this pool. A few random questions: >> >> - Do we know what is this number for the last several NOMCOMs? > > The last two Nomcom Chairs were part of the design team for the proposal. As > I recall, Joel actually ran some of these kinds of numbers. I don't remember > the details he produced, but they were part of our consideration and we > definitely all haggled quite a bit about the number to recommend.
If Joel already got the numbers, it seems useful to know. What about my other question, what percentage of volunteers over the last few years that would fall into this second pool? This would help understand the feasibility of the idea (i.e. the 2nd pool still needs to be large enough) > There was a remarkable amount of support for 3, bordering on unanimity. > (Exercise to the reader: take a guess who was the odd one out...) > > The reason for preferring 3 was balancing a desire to ensure a /minimum/ > level of knowledge but also to limit the amouont of /dominance/ of old-timers. > > So the feeling was that two was not enough to meet the minimum, but requiring > four would start feeling like dominance among the voting members. four is still less than half of voting members, not "dominance"? >> Take into account the fact that many people probably do not attend all IETF >> meetings, as a strawman for a longer IETF experience, what about attending 5 >> of the last 8 or 10 meetings? > > Speaking only for myself, I'll say that it's quite easy to go to many IETF > meetings, but never learn anything about IETF process. the above statement applies in general, independent from the NOMCOM eligibility criteria. > When someone has the responsibility for choosing the people who manage the > process, we ought to focus on ensuring that level of knowledge. Hence the > second pool. and I support the second pool idea > I've been on 3 Nomcoms. Some of the folk who did not know much IETF process > were nonetheless very strong contributors. Some weren't. The key argument > for retaining this "less experienced" criterion is that it tends to add some > fresh perspective (along with the naivete... so it's a mixed benefit.) - definitely people can all be strong contributors, with or without much IETF knowledge. - I think an effective NOMCOM does require some minimal IETF knowledge from its members. - fresh blood is always important. Even 5 out of last 8 meetings allows one with just 2-year IETF experience. Lixia _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
