Re: Possible extra "oral tradition" for draft-ietf-nomcom-rfc2727bis-01.txt

[Fred Baker <fred@cisco.com>]

At 01:33 PM 7/9/2002 -0400, James M Galvin wrote:
> 1. Section 3 Item 1 requires the NOMCOM to be presented with the desired
>    qualifications along with the list of open positions;

A general comment - this can be taken to silly extremes. Getting a set of 
qualifications from the body in question is good, but it is hardly the 
whole story. I think it needs to be clear that the nomcom is expected to 
use its own judgement in addition to getting a general set of 
qualifications from the IESG or IAB.

Let me take a very hypothetical example and a very concrete one. Suppose 
that there is an area that needs an area director, and the area is in 
trouble in one way or another. The requirements that the IESG are likely to 
impose include things like:

 - is able to select good WG chairs
 - is able to manage an activity to a charter and set of milestones
 - has some experience in the IETF
 - has some expertise in the relevant area of standardization
 - plays well with others

and so on. The IESG is unlikely, however, to add

 - has to be able to identify and solve <whatever the problem is>

None-the-less, that last may be the most important qualification for *this* 
year's candidate. In this case, the nomcom will itself generate that 
requirement in its own discussion, should not expect to get that 
requirement handed to them, and should not be beaten up for doing so.

Similarly, in looking at the IETF Chair (which the nomcom appoints) or the 
IAB Chair (which the nomcom does not appoint, but the question of who will 
likely be chosen to do the job does come up in discussion), we are talking 
about the CEO or CTO of the organization in some sense. What are the 
qualifications of a CxO? I suspect that they can be difficult to enumerate 
precisely, but come down to the factors one considers in answering the 
questions

      "does s/he have the vision of where we ought to be going?"
      "does s/he have a clue to how to get us there?"
      "Can s/he select good supporting personnel?"
      "Can s/he fix or fire non-performing personnel?"
      "If s/he were to lead, would I follow?"

Again, the nomcom will itself generate and evaluate those issues in its own 
discussion, should not expect to get a tidy list handed to them, and should 
not be beaten up for exercising its wisdom.

In short, the job of the nomcom sounds simple enough - "identify slots to 
be filled and find appropriate people to fill them." But it is complicated 
by a number of factors, especially including the fact that it is not really 
collecting a number of individuals; it is selecting members of a team who 
will have to work together, and which taken as a whole needs to have 
certain attributes represented. You can't write that program in C, nor can 
you specify it in any language. It requires a fair bit of understanding and 
judgement. As with every judgement call, there will invariably be minority 
reports and dissenting opinions. We have to make sure this is well 
understood and taken into account.