Re: PROPOSED GUIDELINE: balance

[Brian E Carpenter <brian@hursley.ibm.com>]

Robert Elz wrote:
> 
>     Date:        Thu, 4 Apr 2002 14:09:29 -0500
>     From:        Theodore Tso <tytso@mit.edu>
>     Message-ID:  <20020404140929.N5042@thunk.org>
> 
>   | Different people will have different ideas of
>   | what constitutes "superior".  I'd much rather have this discussion
>   | publically, even if we can only have it at an abstract level, instead
>   | of having it closed doors.
> 
> Absolutely, that's what I was trying to suggest, when I said the nomcom
> should ask ("start a discussion" might have been better than "ask").
> 
> In another message you asked "who should they ask?" - for that, it
> depends upon the question, but everyone reading the ietf mailing list
> would be a good choice for some questions.    Or perhaps nomcoms should
> get into the habit of running a public mailing list of their own
> (something just like the ietf list, but with a limited scope, to avoid
> bothering people o the ietf list who don't care - with just an announcement
> sent to the ietf-announce list when there's a new topic for discussion).
> 
> Other times, just asking the IAB, or IESG, or something might be more
> appropriate - it will depend upon the question.
> 
>   | I suppose the question is how frequently do we think the desireable
>   | attributes change over time?
> 
> They probably shouldn't change all that often, but the ones that seem
> to be important seem to alter every year.   A few years ago, there was
> a burning desire for more apps knowledgable people on the IAB, from
> what's being said here, perhaps next year there will be a strong desire
> for more international reps on the IAB ...
> 
>   | If we think they change very frequently,
>   | then I could imagine a process where every year, there is a 2 month
>   | window where there is an open discussion mailing list where selection
>   | criteria in the abstract (no names, or actual candidates would be
>   | discussed)for the IAB and IESG could be aired.  This could serve as
>   | additional input to the nomcom.
> 
> Yes, that's the kind of thing that should be done.

No problem with any of that. If you look back at the start of this thread,
all I suggested writing down was, effectively, "NomCom should think about
balance", not attempting to codify rules of balance.

    Brian