These days I don't contribute much to the IETF, so I hesitate to say much, but I care about it a lot and may contribute again someday. IMHO ...
Once I lived in Japan for a year and got to think I understood Japanese culture, but finally realized I had hardly scratched the surface. Once, in Germany, I thought Germans were a lot like Americans, but finally realized I had no idea how different they were. And so on. Likewise, people may think they understand how the IETF "works", and deduce from that what IETF culture means, when they have just begun to grasp it. The IETF mission is already vulnerable. Most of the time we can hold the culture together, although it takes a lot of work as unanimity has already begun falling apart. If we want to change the mission and culture, that's okay but we should do so consciously and explicitly. The NomCom is pivotal for the IETF being able to do its work, to fulfill its mission, in the future. People who "know" how the IETF works but do not have enough experience in the culture will not know how to express it well, in difficult and subtle situations. I'm not talking about knowledge of information, I'm talking about mastery of a trade -- something that comes with a lot of experience practicing it. Because of that, weakening requirements for NomCom participation greatly increases the probability that our culture will fracture, and our mission statement lose meaning, before we have a chance to agree on what they should become. I supported the proposal to require a few old-timers on every NomCom a few years ago. I'm quite against the idea of lowering requirements now. I would only entrust the future of the IETF to those who have enough experience and hard-earned wisdom to make the difficult decisions that are required. Those who participate in the process but are not really deep in the culture are already well-represented through the vehicles for contributing to the NomCom process. Scott
