Re: Proposed change to draft-ietf-nomcom-rfc2727bis-01.txt

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

Dave,

First of all it seems that the draft is intended to allow more time
than before, but I was too dumb to spot it. So my proposed change probably
isn't needed, but some text clarification is.

Dave Crocker wrote:
> 
> At 11:40 AM 7/9/2002 +0200, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> >    2.  The annual selection and confirmation process is expected to be
> >        completed within 5 months.
> 
> Let's take a step back, folks:  Why 5 months?  Why not 8 or 3?

Specifically, because I think we need about 8 weeks more in the process,
which I think is the intention of the draft anyawy.

> 5 months means that we have a yearly process that takes nearly half a
> year!  That just does not make sense.

Why not?
> 
>          It ignores the reality that a nomcom's members
>          get exhausted.

Surely having a bit more time to do the same amount of work should reduce 
the exhaustion level?
> 
> I know that this past year's committee worked very hard and nearly ran out
> of energy.  I do not for one moment believe that adding more time would
> have made things better.

It isn't intended to add work.
> 
> Sometimes, throwing money at a problem fixes it.  Same for throwing time at it.
> 
> Sometimes we need to figure out what real problems there are and fix them
> more directly.

And the real problem I spoke of in Minneapolis was the difficulty encountered
by the conforming bodies in understanding and handling controversial choices
made by NomCom.

> 
> >The rationale, as discussed at length earlier, is to give more time for
> >both the selection and confirmation processes, since the latter in
> >particular has proved too short for calm discussion.
> 
> For all of the real and obvious concern over having the confirming bodies
> feel rushed, I have yet to understand what would take place that would be
> different and better.

Having sat on the confirming side of the fence for 8 straight years, I can tell
you that feeling rushed when called on to approve a controversial decision
is not a good place to be. Allowing 4 weeks or so for any necessary dialogue
between the approving bodies and NomCom seems essential to me. That allows
for a real discussion (if needed).
> 
> Can someone please describe the changes to the confirming process that
> would be enabled?
> 

There is no formal change. There is just time to do it with some thought.

> With respect to Jim's description of the 3 phases for nomcom (formation,
> selection, confirmation) I suggest instead that folks think of incremental
> milestones for nomcom to use with the confirming bodies -- that is,
> external deliverables -- so that a) nomcom has some deliverables that will
> focus it, and b) the confirming bodies are given bits of foundation to
> evaluate prior to having a final slate dumped on them.
> 
> This treats the confirming bodies as collaborating members of the process,
> which I suspect is the real change that needs to happen, as long as the
> nature of the collaboration does not alter the role of confirming bodies as
> confirming process.

Yes, that wouldn't be bad, but perhaps as an oral tradition item until we
have some running code.

  Brian