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

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

At 11:15 AM 7/15/2002, Joel M. Halpern wrote:
> One of the reasons why I at least would like to see names available 
> earlier, and more feedback to the nomcom about people earlier is that some 
> of this apparent intransigence (to use a prejudicial description) is human 
> nature.  By the time the nomcom has worked its way through the tough job 
> it has, and managed to come to agreement on a slate of candidates, the 
> members have spent a lot of time and energy on this.  As a consequence, 
> there is going to be very strong natural resistance to changing the 
> plan.  This is not to insult the members or imply that they are 
> deliberately refusing to cooperate.  It is a natural consequence of the 
> way human beings react once they have reached tough decisions.

It's true that nomcom will be resistant to change for the reason you've 
suggested. But the nomcom will have already solicited input from as many 
people as it sees fit. Getting more input is either redundant or it comes 
from sources that the nomcom doesn't necessarily trust.

> The corollary in my mind is that input which we want to have considered 
> needs to get in before the final slate of candidates is selected by the nomcom.

The process in RFC 2727 already ensures that. The only thing that fails 
significantly in this process is that the people who *should* be giving 
feedback do not for various reasons including lack of cycles.