Re: What is the problem [was Re: SUMMARY: publish list of nominees?]

[Matt Holdrege <matt.holdrege@verizon.net>]

At 06:12 PM 3/30/2002, Leslie Daigle wrote:
> Marshall,
>
> I illustrated my concerns in terms of the actions of the most
> recent NomCom, but I was trying to describe the general problem
> that NomComs are increasingly challenged by the task of identifying
> representative and broad-based sources of input.
>
> In that light, I don't think it's _fair_ to just ask the
> next NomCom to 'do something different'.  A year from now,
> we'll be complaining they didn't ask _enough_ people for
> input.  Or some other issue.
>
> If not an open nominee list, and not a tortured set of
> rules, can we as a community not come up with some more
> helpful guidelines -- for the future NomComs, or for the
> IETF community interfacing with them?

Yes! All the nomcom's need is a little guidance. These people are grown-ups 
and they are really not susceptible to popularity campaigns. In fact, most 
IETF'ers look at such things with a jaundiced eye. This year's nomcom 
simply did what they thought was the right thing. We had guidance from our 
chair and our liaisons, but we still chose our own course.

I'm of the opinion that we don't need to change any rules. But a few more 
words of guidance in RFC 2727 might be helpful for future nomcom's.