Re: Ad Hoc BOFs

[Paul Hoffman]

At 9:32 AM -0800 7/30/10, Melinda Shore wrote:
>Yoav Nir wrote:
>>First is people who have an idea they want to present,
> > but that idea either doesn't fit the charter of any
>> particular working group (or they don't know about such a
>> working group), or else said working group's schedule
>> is too full with existing work.
>
>The way that's traditionally done is with an internet draft.

Bingo. The number of scheduled-but-ad-hoc BoFs that had fleshed-out ideas but 
no drafts was distressing. One of the big lessons learned from the current 
situation: people have forgotten that writing initial drafts is both easy and 
non-committal. If you're worried about writing a draft that turns out to be a 
bad idea, just write something humorous and self-deprecating about that in the 
abstract.

>The implication that there needs to be a session, with a room
>and slides and humans sitting in chairs, kind of suggests that
>people who want to participate in the IETF have to attend
>meetings.

"participate" is too strong a word. Scheduled-but-ad-hoc BoFs now have the same 
unfortunate properties of many WGs, namely that 80+% of the people there are 
only there to listen, not help. A true bar BoF eliminates most of them due to 
the intimacy.

--Paul Hoffman, Director
--VPN Consortium
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: Nomcom Enhancements: Improving the IETF leadership selection process

[Aaron Falk]

 Hi Donald-

You present an interesting idea and I appreciate your desire to avoid a 
two-class nomcom.  If you were to take that approach, I'd suggest allocating 
points as below:

High points (e.g., 10)
- served as a working group chair
- served on the IESG or IAB

Medium points (e.g., 5)
- served as a liaison
- authored an IETF Stream RFC
- shepherded an IETF Stream RFC
- served on a directorate or liaison
(there are probably others)

Low points (e.g., 1 per meeting)
- meeting attendance

Giving meeting attendance points 1 per meeting without bound seems like a good 
idea since someone who has attended 20 IETF meetings may be a lot more plugged 
in than someone who has attended 5 or some of the 'medium points' items. 

Just a thought,

--aaron


On 7/30/10 11:23 PM, Donald Eastlake wrote:
> I can see the desire to have some more experience on the nomcom.
>
> However, I am completely opposed to invidious schemes to divide the nomcom 
> voting members into two (or more) classes. And I think the desired results 
> can be obtained without doing so.
>
> The current qualification is attendance 3 out of the last 5 meetings but no 
> one notices or cares whether any particular nomcom volunteer attended 3, 4, 
> or 5 meeting. If you want more experienced members, just tighten the 
> attendance criteria a bit but give points for other experience. As an 
> example, set a threshold of 4 or 5 points where you get one for each meeting 
> you attend out of the last six, one point for being on either of the two most 
> recent nomcoms, and one point for having been a working group chair in the 
> past two years. You could even make the probability of selection non-uniform 
> based on points and I'd be willing to modify the code normally used to allow 
> that, but I don't think it would be necessary.
>
> This way you will get more experience without the dominance effects of some 
> nomcom members being labeled Senior and some Junior or whatever.
>
> Thanks,
> Donald
> =
>  Donald E. Eastlake 3rd
>  155 Beaver Street
>  Milford, MA 01757 USA
>  d3e...@gmail.com 
>
>
> ___
> Ietf mailing list
> Ietf@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: Nomcom Enhancements: Improving the IETF leadership selection process

[Donald Eastlake]

I can see the desire to have some more experience on the nomcom.

However, I am completely opposed to invidious schemes to divide the nomcom
voting members into two (or more) classes. And I think the desired results
can be obtained without doing so.

The current qualification is attendance 3 out of the last 5 meetings but no
one notices or cares whether any particular nomcom volunteer attended 3, 4,
or 5 meeting. If you want more experienced members, just tighten the
attendance criteria a bit but give points for other experience. As an
example, set a threshold of 4 or 5 points where you get one for each meeting
you attend out of the last six, one point for being on either of the two
most recent nomcoms, and one point for having been a working group chair in
the past two years. You could even make the probability of selection
non-uniform based on points and I'd be willing to modify the code normally
used to allow that, but I don't think it would be necessary.

This way you will get more experience without the dominance effects of some
nomcom members being labeled Senior and some Junior or whatever.

Thanks,
Donald
=
 Donald E. Eastlake 3rd
 155 Beaver Street
 Milford, MA 01757 USA
 d3e...@gmail.com
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: Ad Hoc BOFs

[Yoav Nir]

On Jul 30, 2010, at 7:32 PM, Melinda Shore wrote:

> Yoav Nir wrote:
>> First is people who have an idea they want to present, 
>> but that idea either doesn't fit the charter of any
>> particular working group (or they don't know about such a
>> working group), or else said working group's schedule
>> is too full with existing work.
> 
> The way that's traditionally done is with an internet draft.

True.

> The implication that there needs to be a session, with a room
> and slides and humans sitting in chairs, kind of suggests that
> people who want to participate in the IETF have to attend
> meetings.  I can see that being the case for administrative
> and organizational efforts like nomcom but question whether
> that should be true for technical work.

There doesn't need to be, but that is one way to do things. There are hundreds 
of drafts posted every week. We all ignore most of them. A short presentation 
might get enough people interested to start a discussion on some mailing list.


___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: Ad Hoc BOFs

[Melinda Shore]

Yoav Nir wrote:
First is people who have an idea they want to present, 

> but that idea either doesn't fit the charter of any
> particular working group (or they don't know about such a
> working group), or else said working group's schedule
> is too full with existing work.

The way that's traditionally done is with an internet draft.
The implication that there needs to be a session, with a room
and slides and humans sitting in chairs, kind of suggests that
people who want to participate in the IETF have to attend
meetings.  I can see that being the case for administrative
and organizational efforts like nomcom but question whether
that should be true for technical work.

Melinda
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: Ad Hoc BOFs

[Yoav Nir]

I think there are really two issues here.

First is people who have an idea they want to present, but that idea either 
doesn't fit the charter of any particular working group (or they don't know 
about such a working group), or else said working group's schedule is too full 
with existing work. The only way they can do this, is to "schedule" some bar 
bof, and hope the right people come and listen. For these people, the larger 
the audience, the better.

The other kind is people with just a topic they think something should be done 
about. In that case, they really want to find a small group of people who may 
be passionate about the topic, and think of ideas about what the IETF can do 
here.

The second group are the candidates for the classic bar BoF, whether it is held 
in an actual bar, in the hallways of the meeting venue, or in a meeting room 
but the classroom-style arrangement of the chairs there is not so great. I 
think the best way to schedule one of those is to send a message to the 
attendee list (or the IETF list) saying "I'd like to get together to talk about 
this-or-that. Anybody who's interested, please email me off-line". Requiring an 
email sets the bar for participation just high enough that the people who just 
want to read their email won't come. Then this organizer can see how many 
people are interested, and find the appropriate venue based on that, informing 
them by private email.

What we really should be thinking about, is what to do with the first group. 
They are likely to have a presentation, so they need a meeting room, and they 
do want a large audience (so maybe someone there says, "I think we can do this 
at so-and-so WG".  One idea may be to allocate a fair-sized room for this 
purpose (something like Berlin in the MECC) and allocate the time there in 
30-minute chunks, of which no more than half is the presentation, and the rest 
is time for questions. The list of topics would not be moderated, unless there 
are so many of them, that they won't fit, and the list, including a timetable 
can be published, with slots taken on a first-come-first-served basis. This 
way, the presenter can avoid having conflicts between their presentation and 
some session where all the people they want are attending.

Just a thought. There are probably other ways to do this.

___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: Ad Hoc BOFs

[Joel M. Halpern]

I think it may be important to better emphasis the difference between 
formal  BoFs and informal promotional meetings.
While Formal BoFs are not absolutely necessary for process purposes, 
they are usually a good idea to help the IAB and IESG judge interest.

Process-wise, these informal barBoFs have no meaning.
Also, while we have procedures for trying to ensure IAB members and 
relevant ADs attend BoFs, our leadership is NOT "expected" or required 
to attend these informal sessions.  (I would almost suggest banning them 
from attending, except that once in a while they attend because the 
topic is interesting to them personally interested in the topic.)  One 
person's note mentioned that som barBoFs complained because the relevant 
AD did not attend.  I would almost declare an extra meeting delay in 
formation for any group that made such a complaint.  We place plenty of 
demands on our leadership.  This should not be one of them.


Yours,
Joel

Patrik Fältström wrote:

On 30 jul 2010, at 14.54, Jari Arkko wrote:


Participation. As you can tell from above, I do not feel capable (or even 
obliged) of attending all these meetings.


I just hope everyone understand you and other busy people are indeed busy, and 
need a break now and then. And that non-participation does not imply 
non-interest or anything even remotely in that direction. It is most certainly 
the other way around.

If you dislike something, then I am 100% you WILL show up and say so ;-)

   Patrik





___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: Ad Hoc BOFs

[Patrik Fältström]

On 30 jul 2010, at 14.54, Jari Arkko wrote:

> Participation. As you can tell from above, I do not feel capable (or even 
> obliged) of attending all these meetings.

I just hope everyone understand you and other busy people are indeed busy, and 
need a break now and then. And that non-participation does not imply 
non-interest or anything even remotely in that direction. It is most certainly 
the other way around.

If you dislike something, then I am 100% you WILL show up and say so ;-)

   Patrik



PGP.sig
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: Nomcom Enhancements: Improving the IETF leadership selection process

[James M. Polk]

At 06:15 AM 7/30/2010, Aaron Falk wrote:



On 7/30/10 9:46 AM, Marshall Eubanks wrote:
> On Jul 30, 2010, at 3:11 AM, Mary Barnes wrote:
>
>> Just to add my two cents to this discussion from a (past) noncom 
chair perpsective, having more experienced IETF participants on the 
Nomcom helps tremendously.  It makes it far easier for the noncom 
chair and non-voting members (previous nomcom chair and liaisons) 
to stick to the roles as specified in RFC 3777 in terms of 
facilitatng and ensuring the integrity of  the process and not 
influencing the decisions of the nomcom.  In the end, each voting 
member gets one vote (using a methodology agreed by the voting 
members), so the positives of ensuring the nomcom has experienced 
members far outweigh any perceived negatives in my experience.

>>
>
> I was discussing this with various people yesterday - maybe it 
would be useful to have a "moving average" NOMCOM, with a two year 
term, and 50% replacement each year. Once that was set up, I think 
that the need for experienced hands would diminish - one year on 
the NOMCOM seems to be quite a bit of experience.


I don't think Mary is talking about members with previous nomcom 
experience but rather more IETF experience.  I agree.  In fact, why 
should we have nomcom members with little IETF experience picking 
our leadership?


I agree completely on this point, even if it means having a 2-tiered 
system of half the current 3-of-5 meetings, and have (something like) 
10-of-15 (or more) meetings.


it's a thought (that goes to what Aaron is talking about)

James



--aaron
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf


___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: Ad Hoc BOFs

[Jari Arkko]

Fred,

I have mixed feelings about this. I had a tough week, particularly with 
lunches and dinner times packed with more meetings than usual. I already 
complained to Ray that they had made the system too efficient. You could 
now get lunch sandwich from the cafeteria in five minutes, making it 
possible to join a meeting during lunch break. Please be sure to include 
"only slow restaurants" in the meeting selection criteria for future 
meetings, so that we can have our lunch break back :-) Other problems 
that I saw during the week with the ad hoc BOFs include people 
consistently referring to the meetings as "BOFs", without making a 
distinction between a real BOF and an unofficial side meeting, some ADs 
worrying about conflicts and lack of scheduling for the ad hoc meetings, 
and some repetition of same proposals from the previous IETF without 
apparent progress.


That being said, in this meeting I saw more new things than I have seen 
for a while. I also felt that while I was busy and tired, I had made the 
right personal scheduling choices. For the record, I only participated 
three out of eight possible Internet area related side meetings, due to 
lack of time/other meetings and in few cases because I felt I needed to 
give myself some rest.


But we should also think about this a bit more than provide anecdotes. 
Lets think about the effect of the having side meetings to begin with, 
make a list of these meetings public, the location, and leadership 
participation separately. I think we all agree that having such meetings 
is great. That is how IETF gets the next wave of interesting topics to 
work on. We absolutely need the ability for hallway conversations, bar 
meetings, and the like.


I was responsible for making the list of meetings public. For the record 
I still do have mixed feelings about this. I have heard many people 
state that we should rather have smaller meetings and that its the 
public part of these meetings that drives up the participant count and 
makes the meeting more formal. Maybe so. I will point out, however, that 
one function of the public listing is to find a similarly interested 
discussion partner. Some people in the IETF are very well connected and 
may not need that, but I'm not sure that's true of everyone.


The location. I personally like having food in a small gathering, in a 
nice environment. That being said, the only real bar BoF that I attended 
was horrible in terms of being able to hear what the other people said. 
We had a dozen people, and I could not hear what the other end of the 
table said, multiple sets of people talked in parallel, etc. In the 
meetings that happened at the meeting rooms I was always able to 
understand what others were saying (though maybe not what their idea was 
:-) In general, I think one of the biggest values of the IETF is that we 
can put people together. I have no problem asking the secretariat to 
give one of our unused rooms for some ad hoc meeting if the participants 
believe it makes them move things forward.


Participation. As you can tell from above, I do not feel capable (or 
even obliged) of attending all these meetings. I try to make the most 
important ones, but you are on your own if you organizing an unofficial 
meeting. Just like you have always been. I know some other ADs have 
worried about scheduling conflicts with directorates and actual 
meetings. I'm not sure I want to see these meeting scheduled in any 
particular manner. If someone wants me to be somewhere, they better make 
sure I know when it is, why I should be there, and that I have no 
conflicts at that time. I do think that we should not schedule 
unofficial meetings against working group meetings. Looking at the bar 
BOF wiki, it does not seem that this was happening too much.


Jari

___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: Nomcom Enhancements: Improving the IETF leadership selection process

[Mary Barnes]

Correct - I was not specifically referring to folks that previously had been
on Nomcom.

However, there are certainly folks that had previously served on Nomcom that
do volunteer again - last year's Nomcom had a voting member that had been on
3 or 4 other Nomcoms and several others that had been on prior nomcoms.  I
think the two pool approach might increase the probability of getting folks
with past nomcom experience and one thought would be to include folks with
past nomcom experience in the first tier pool to increase the chances of
such.

Mary.

On Fri, Jul 30, 2010 at 6:15 AM, Aaron Falk  wrote:

>
>
> On 7/30/10 9:46 AM, Marshall Eubanks wrote:
> > On Jul 30, 2010, at 3:11 AM, Mary Barnes wrote:
> >
> >> Just to add my two cents to this discussion from a (past) noncom chair
> perpsective, having more experienced IETF participants on the Nomcom helps
> tremendously.  It makes it far easier for the noncom chair and non-voting
> members (previous nomcom chair and liaisons) to stick to the roles as
> specified in RFC 3777 in terms of facilitatng and ensuring the integrity of
>  the process and not influencing the decisions of the nomcom.  In the end,
> each voting member gets one vote (using a methodology agreed by the voting
> members), so the positives of ensuring the nomcom has experienced members
> far outweigh any perceived negatives in my experience.
> >>
> >
> > I was discussing this with various people yesterday - maybe it would be
> useful to have a "moving average" NOMCOM, with a two year term, and 50%
> replacement each year. Once that was set up, I think that the need for
> experienced hands would diminish - one year on the NOMCOM seems to be quite
> a bit of experience.
>
> I don't think Mary is talking about members with previous nomcom experience
> but rather more IETF experience.  I agree.  In fact, why should we have
> nomcom members with little IETF experience picking our leadership?
>
> --aaron
>
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: Nomcom Enhancements: Improving the IETF leadership selection process

[Aaron Falk]

On 7/30/10 9:46 AM, Marshall Eubanks wrote:
> On Jul 30, 2010, at 3:11 AM, Mary Barnes wrote:
>
>> Just to add my two cents to this discussion from a (past) noncom chair 
>> perpsective, having more experienced IETF participants on the Nomcom helps 
>> tremendously.  It makes it far easier for the noncom chair and non-voting 
>> members (previous nomcom chair and liaisons) to stick to the roles as 
>> specified in RFC 3777 in terms of facilitatng and ensuring the integrity of  
>> the process and not influencing the decisions of the nomcom.  In the end, 
>> each voting member gets one vote (using a methodology agreed by the voting 
>> members), so the positives of ensuring the nomcom has experienced members 
>> far outweigh any perceived negatives in my experience.
>>
>
> I was discussing this with various people yesterday - maybe it would be 
> useful to have a "moving average" NOMCOM, with a two year term, and 50% 
> replacement each year. Once that was set up, I think that the need for 
> experienced hands would diminish - one year on the NOMCOM seems to be quite a 
> bit of experience. 

I don't think Mary is talking about members with previous nomcom experience but 
rather more IETF experience.  I agree.  In fact, why should we have nomcom 
members with little IETF experience picking our leadership?

--aaron
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: Nomcom Enhancements: Improving the IETF leadership selection process

[Joel M. Halpern]

I do not think it is reasonable to ask people to commit for serving a 
two year term on nomcom.  Some folks have the energy and interest to do 
so.  Wonderful and thank you to them.  But given that it is an intense 
personnel selection process, I do not think expecting two years of 
service for it is reasonable.


Yours,
Joel

Alia Atlas wrote:

I also think that a 50% replacement rule - or even a 66% replacement
rule would be very useful.  The work load is very high, but much of
that is gathering knowledge and opinions on the different candidates.
Since the candidate set from year to year is not disjoint, I think
that the work load for consecutive years would be feasible.

One advantage of this is having recent historical knowledge -
currently the NomCom must depend upon this from the previous NomCom
chair and liasons, which gives added strength  from the non-voting
members.

It may be the case that those NomCom members who are old would wield
more influence the second year, but I think that will pull more
randomly from the members than having a separate experienced pool.

Alia

On Fri, Jul 30, 2010 at 4:09 AM, Andrew Sullivan  wrote:

On Fri, Jul 30, 2010 at 03:46:12AM -0400, Marshall Eubanks wrote:

I was discussing this with various people yesterday - maybe it would be
useful to have a "moving average" NOMCOM, with a two year term, and 50%
replacement each year. Once that was set up, I think that the need for
experienced hands would diminish - one year on the NOMCOM seems to be
quite a bit of experience.

A 50% replacement rule would be, in my view, very much preferable to
the two-tier version that's been proposed.  The original proposal
will, in my view, make the Nomcom effectively the domain of the
"experienced" people -- i.e. the "elect" will just take over, and
Nomcom decisions will be whatever those three want (regardless of the
best intentions of all the participants).  This new proposal will
still create a differentiation in the Nomcom, but that differentiation
is not based on being the product (either direct or indirect) of
previous Nomcoms.  This is a change I would support.

A

--
Andrew Sullivan
a...@shinkuro.com
Shinkuro, Inc.
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf


___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf


___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: Nomcom Enhancements: Improving the IETF leadership selection process

[Alia Atlas]

I also think that a 50% replacement rule - or even a 66% replacement
rule would be very useful.  The work load is very high, but much of
that is gathering knowledge and opinions on the different candidates.
Since the candidate set from year to year is not disjoint, I think
that the work load for consecutive years would be feasible.

One advantage of this is having recent historical knowledge -
currently the NomCom must depend upon this from the previous NomCom
chair and liasons, which gives added strength  from the non-voting
members.

It may be the case that those NomCom members who are old would wield
more influence the second year, but I think that will pull more
randomly from the members than having a separate experienced pool.

Alia

On Fri, Jul 30, 2010 at 4:09 AM, Andrew Sullivan  wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 30, 2010 at 03:46:12AM -0400, Marshall Eubanks wrote:
>> I was discussing this with various people yesterday - maybe it would be
>> useful to have a "moving average" NOMCOM, with a two year term, and 50%
>> replacement each year. Once that was set up, I think that the need for
>> experienced hands would diminish - one year on the NOMCOM seems to be
>> quite a bit of experience.
>
> A 50% replacement rule would be, in my view, very much preferable to
> the two-tier version that's been proposed.  The original proposal
> will, in my view, make the Nomcom effectively the domain of the
> "experienced" people -- i.e. the "elect" will just take over, and
> Nomcom decisions will be whatever those three want (regardless of the
> best intentions of all the participants).  This new proposal will
> still create a differentiation in the Nomcom, but that differentiation
> is not based on being the product (either direct or indirect) of
> previous Nomcoms.  This is a change I would support.
>
> A
>
> --
> Andrew Sullivan
> a...@shinkuro.com
> Shinkuro, Inc.
> ___
> Ietf mailing list
> Ietf@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
>
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: Ad Hoc BOFs

[Jelte Jansen]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

On 07/30/2010 06:53 AM, Fred Baker wrote:
> 
> On Jul 30, 2010, at 12:28 AM, Scott Brim wrote:
> 
>> So I can't complain about the get-togethers of any sort, just that there 
>> wasn't enough time for them.  I would like to encourage the use of IETF 
>> tools to announce ad hoc discussions using good teleconferencing tools, e.g. 
>> video, whiteboard, and queue management.
> 
> And that's the point I'm trying to get to. They have all been valuable. I do 
> very much wish that those promoting them had done a better job of fitting 
> them into the schedule rather than simply dropping them atop it, and in some 
> cases remote conferencing tools will be useful choices.

but if they were al nicely scheduled alongside each other, you might feel forced
to attend even more meetings...

In fact, I was quite surprised to find the Bar Bof announcement page, which kind
of seems to go against the whole idea of it (eg you don't want to exclude
anyone, but you certainly don't want too many people to show up)

I held an unofficial meeting this week, and hope to have a real BoF next IETF,
but I did not put it on the announcement page (on purpose), and in fact i kind
of felt forced to call it a 'pre-bar-bof-meeting' because bar-bof already feels
too official.

IMHO, if you make it more official, you'll only extend the process, which will
result in another level of meetings, and even fuller schedules.

Jelte
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iEYEARECAAYFAkxSilMACgkQ4nZCKsdOncXhJwCfdahzXTk0ZZyEShk6Pqwx3eHa
DKUAoKbASKuQ7rUS/jzr0LMJjvSEuATn
=uCfn
-END PGP SIGNATURE-
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: Nomcom Enhancements: Improving the IETF leadership selection process

[Andrew Sullivan]

On Fri, Jul 30, 2010 at 03:46:12AM -0400, Marshall Eubanks wrote:
> I was discussing this with various people yesterday - maybe it would be 
> useful to have a "moving average" NOMCOM, with a two year term, and 50% 
> replacement each year. Once that was set up, I think that the need for 
> experienced hands would diminish - one year on the NOMCOM seems to be 
> quite a bit of experience.

A 50% replacement rule would be, in my view, very much preferable to
the two-tier version that's been proposed.  The original proposal
will, in my view, make the Nomcom effectively the domain of the
"experienced" people -- i.e. the "elect" will just take over, and
Nomcom decisions will be whatever those three want (regardless of the
best intentions of all the participants).  This new proposal will
still create a differentiation in the Nomcom, but that differentiation
is not based on being the product (either direct or indirect) of
previous Nomcoms.  This is a change I would support.

A

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
a...@shinkuro.com
Shinkuro, Inc.
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: Nomcom Enhancements: Improving the IETF leadership selection process

[Dave CROCKER]

On 7/30/2010 9:46 AM, Marshall Eubanks wrote:

I was discussing this with various people yesterday - maybe it would be useful
to have a "moving average" NOMCOM, with a two year term, and 50% replacement
each year. Once that was set up, I think that the need for experienced hands
would diminish - one year on the NOMCOM seems to be quite a bit of experience.



As someone who was on last year's Nomcom, and has been on 2 before that, I'd 
decline the opportunity to be overwhelmed and exhausted in that fashion, two 
years in a row.


If there were some way to make the workload more reasonable, your suggestion 
could prove useful.  So far, no one seems to have floated a proposal that makes 
Nomcom tolerable as a sustained activity for an on-going set of people.


d/

--

  Dave Crocker
  Brandenburg InternetWorking
  bbiw.net
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: Nomcom Enhancements: Improving the IETF leadership selection process

[Marshall Eubanks]

On Jul 30, 2010, at 3:11 AM, Mary Barnes wrote:

Just to add my two cents to this discussion from a (past) noncom  
chair perpsective, having more experienced IETF participants on the  
Nomcom helps tremendously.  It makes it far easier for the noncom  
chair and non-voting members (previous nomcom chair and liaisons) to  
stick to the roles as specified in RFC 3777 in terms of facilitatng  
and ensuring the integrity of  the process and not influencing the  
decisions of the nomcom.  In the end, each voting member gets one  
vote (using a methodology agreed by the voting members), so the  
positives of ensuring the nomcom has experienced members far  
outweigh any perceived negatives in my experience.




I was discussing this with various people yesterday - maybe it would  
be useful to have a "moving average" NOMCOM, with a two year term, and  
50% replacement each year. Once that was set up, I think that the need  
for experienced hands would diminish - one year on the NOMCOM seems to  
be quite a bit of experience.


Regards
Marshall






Thanks,
Mary.



Dave,

> John,
>
> On 7/24/2010 2:24 PM, John Leslie wrote:
> > How can we impose additional
> > experience requirements on some NomCom members without implying  
that

> > we want their opinions to be considered "better"?
>
> I've been on 3 Nomcoms. Voting members with experience are typically
> notable, but those without have yet to show anything I'd call  
"deference"
> or "intimidation". On the average, IETF participants are each and  
all

> rather independent-minded and painfully unintimidated by folks with
> extensive experience.
>
> During a discussion among members, being able to cite experience  
when
> offering an opinion helps, but I haven't seen anything that looked  
like
> inherently preferential position because a member has more  
experience.

> Decisions still require making a good case for a position.

I'll be the IAB's liaison to NomCom this year, but I haven't served  
on a
NomCom previously. You're addressing a concern I had (and I don't  
think I
was the only one) about part of the committee deferring to more  
experienced

participants.

I hadn't heard anyone saying "not a problem in my experience"  
previously.

Good to know.

Thank you.

Spencer
 ___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf


___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: Nomcom Enhancements: Improving the IETF leadership selection process

[Mary Barnes]

Just to add my two cents to this discussion from a (past) noncom chair
perpsective, having more experienced IETF participants on the Nomcom helps
tremendously.  It makes it far easier for the noncom chair and non-voting
members (previous nomcom chair and liaisons) to stick to the roles as
specified in RFC 3777 in terms of facilitatng and ensuring the integrity of
 the process and not influencing the decisions of the nomcom.  In the end,
each voting member gets one vote (using a methodology agreed by the voting
members), so the positives of ensuring the nomcom has experienced members
far outweigh any perceived negatives in my experience.

Thanks,
Mary.



Dave,

> John,
>
> On 7/24/2010 2:24 PM, John Leslie wrote:
> > How can we impose additional
> > experience requirements on some NomCom members without implying that
> > we want their opinions to be considered "better"?
>
> I've been on 3 Nomcoms. Voting members with experience are typically
> notable, but those without have yet to show anything I'd call "deference"

> or "intimidation". On the average, IETF participants are each and all
> rather independent-minded and painfully unintimidated by folks with
> extensive experience.
>
> During a discussion among members, being able to cite experience when
> offering an opinion helps, but I haven't seen anything that looked like
> inherently preferential position because a member has more experience.
> Decisions still require making a good case for a position.

I'll be the IAB's liaison to NomCom this year, but I haven't served on a
NomCom previously. You're addressing a concern I had (and I don't think I
was the only one) about part of the committee deferring to more experienced

participants.

I hadn't heard anyone saying "not a problem in my experience" previously.
Good to know.

Thank you.

Spencer
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf