Re: One more comments on the process draft

["Joel M. Halpern" <joel@stevecrocker.com>]

We appear to be trying to get a perfect document.
Given the nature of the nomcom process, there is probably no such thing as 
a perfect process for it.

We had the discussion about what the conditions for nomcom volunteers ought 
to be.
The proposal is not a small change.  It is a major philosophical change in 
the way we look at nomcom participants and eligibility.

While it is technically still within the working group process to change 
what we have written, we better have a very good reason to do so.
At the moment, we are going to be lucky to get this document out of the 
IESG by August 15.  The new nomcom chair (whomsoever as that may be) will 
be issueing the call for volunteers before that.  If we put much delay on 
this document, the nomcom chair will have to make the selection before we 
have a new document.  Since the old document does not permit using 
different rules that are still pending, that would mean the old rules would 
still apply.

Do we really want to cause an effective 1 year slip in getting better 
rules?  We can go back after the document is approved and start another 
round if we really think we need to make additional changes.

Yours,
Joel M. Halpern

At 05:09 PM 7/16/2003 -0400, RJ Atkinson wrote:

> On Wednesday, Jul 16, 2003, at 12:48 America/Montreal, Michael StJohns wrote:
>
> > Actually, unless someone is about to leave the IAB or IESG, we actually 
> > don't need this until the new Nomcom is ready to be selected.  Let's get 
> > it right, rather than focusing on getting it now.
> >
> > Mike
>
> Agree.
> This document really is important to get correct.
>
> Ran
>
>
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription
> manager: <http://lists.elistx.com/subscribe>