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

[Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>]

On Sat, Jul 13, 2002 at 12:48:59PM +0900, Dave Crocker wrote:
> 
> Nomcom is an extra activity.  The longer it goes, the longer the 
> participants have to carry an extra activity.  The longer they have to 
> carry the support of their management.  The longer the process of nomcom 
> has to keep nomcom "project energy" strong.  The longer they are attending 
> to nomcom and not IETF technical work or IETF management.

The flip side of this argument is that smoothing the workload so that
it is spread out over a period of months, instead of being
concentrated in three months of hellish, concentrated effort, can
sometime be better.

Also, to the extent that we are simply giving the confirming body more
time to consider the results of nomcom, it isn't actually stretching
the amount of time that nomcom needs to spend (or if so, only by a
small amount).

But I believe that we both need to give more time to the confirming
bodies, and more time to nomcom.  I believe that this year's nomcom
could have done a better job if he had started earlier, and weren't
quite so rushed.  I know that Dave also served on this year's nomcom,
and has a differeing point of view, but as the nomcom chair, there
were certainly times when I felt the deadlines as definitely something
which pinched.

Part of this was certainly because we started a little bit later due
to some uncertainties about which nomcom was responsibility for
filling Abha's slot on the IESG.  But in general, I believe giving a
little extra time to the nomcom would definitely help out the process.

						- Ted