[email protected]
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: draft-klensin-nomcom-term-00.txt

Subject: Re: draft-klensin-nomcom-term-00.txt
From: Pekka Savola
Date: Mon, 1 Aug 2005 09:17:12 +0300 EEST

(I'll write my comments at the end of this thread.)

I'm not sure if I can see whether the two-phased approach could work
or not, so at the moment I don't want to take a stance one way or the other. However, there was one part in the review of incumbents (sect 2.1), below,
that concerned me which is probably worth a mention.

Specifically, the proposal seems to be underlining (perhaps the unstated belief by some) that if a potential AD candidate isn't willing to sign up for at least 4 years, he'll be seen as an incompetent, inable, and/or mal- or non-feasant. That's not good.

It may be my age, but IMHO even two years of commitment is significant.  Do
we really want to cut down the list of people even further by discouraging
folks who wouldn't want to get a 4 year sentence?

It seems to me that a problem could be that,
 - folks don't learn the trade fast enough
   * maybe there aren't sufficient knowledge of the job beforehand, so we
     can't coach the people to the job before they take it.  [it might be
     that the document shepherding, genart/directorate review processes,
     etc. may have helped here recently]
   * or we need to ensure there's a way to learn it faster, either by
     selecting and identifying the candidates who are
     more prepared or creating the preparatory materials which could be
     useful for the new folks.
 - the terms, if meant to be held at least twice for any reason except
   incompetence, are too long
    * maybe the terms should be 1.5 years or whatever instead (this would
      cause problems for nomcom schedules, I guess, though).


  In Phase 1, the Nomcom will evaluate the performance of incumbents,
   collecting information from the community as needed to do that.  The
   nomcom is instructed that an incumbent should be returned once (i.e.,
   permitted/encouraged to serve two terms) unless there is strong
   evidence of problems (e.g., incompetence, inability to work with WGs,
   non-feasance, or malfeasance).  Conversely, the nomcom should assume
   that it is better to return an incumbent who has served two terms to
   the community and active WG work unless some special circumstances,
   including but not limited to an outstanding job, apply. [...]

Pekka Savola                 "You each name yourselves king, yet the
Netcore Oy                    kingdom bleeds."
Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings

Ietf mailing list
[email protected]

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>