synopsis of qualifications for nomcom volunteer

[avri doria <avri@sm.luth.se>]

There are two open issues relating to nomcom volunteers:
  - general qualifications
  - number of volunteers from a single company.

I will cover the first in this email and the second in another.

The issue of general qualifications seemed to be an offshoot
of an initial concern that there may not have been a sufficient
pool of volunteers for this year's nomcom.  Once begun, the
discussion widened from there.

- is bias toward those who can travel fair in an
organization where attendance at meetings is not the primary
method of participation or decision making.  The question was
also asked whether simple attendance was a sufficient
criteria or could it someday result in a nomcom without
experienced WG participants.

-- It was discussed that it is difficult to find other
   criteria.  among the suggestion for additional criteria
   were:
  - authorship
  - chair at some point in past (recent)

-- one suggestion involved having two pool of volunteers
   1/2 of the nomcom would be filled from each pool.
   Attendance (the 2 out of 3 rule) would be the criteria
   for one pool while participation (editor, wg chair etc.,)
   would be the criteria for another.

-- one suggestion involved supplementing the 2 out of 3
   rule with a rule that qualified someone who had attended
   at least some larger number of IETF meeting sometime in
   its history.  The number suggested was 6.  The rationale
   was that while the 2 out of 3 selected for recent experience,
   the lifetime rule selected for long term experience even
   in cases were recent attendance was only occasional.

-  There was a suggestion that the current wording was not
   strict enough and the criteria should be:
   "Members of the IETF community must have registered for
    and attended at least 2 of the last 3 IETF meetings in
    order to volunteer."

---  A suggestion was made that rosters could be checked to
     ascertain attendance.  Since these are not entered into any
     database, that would be impractical

-- Since attendance can't be proven it was argued
   that it was less ambiguous to state:
   "Members of the IETF community must have registered for
   at least 2 of the last 3 IETF meetings in order to
   volunteer."

-- There was also an argument that the adjudication  of
   participation should be left to the secretariat

-- There was a specific suggestion that the issue be resolved
   by adding a discussion in the oral tradition that both left
   the rule alone but explained why the rule was as it was:

   The following text was suggested as a starting place

     The test for eligibility for nomcom membership was based
     on two considerations:
     - We want active community members who care about the IETF,
       want to select the best possible leadership for it, and
       are close enough to the community to be able to do so.
     - We want an objective test for who is eligible and who is
       not.

     The criterion we have found that most closely meets both
     those criteria is attendance at meetings. It excludes people
     who participate in the community but do not come to meetings;
     still, it seems impossible to find a rule that would include
     those but not exclude people who have less involvement in the
     community.

---  Further text for the addendum was suggested:
      - since much of the work of the IESG and IAB is done at,
	or manifests itself at, meetings, it is important to
	have Nomcom members who are familiar with the dynamics
	of IETF meetings and participants in them.


--
Avri Doria
http://www.sm.luth.se/~avri/