Re: One more comments on the process draft

[Brian E Carpenter <brian@hursley.ibm.com>]

I agree that this issue was thoroughly debated and closed.

I also think the current formulation is OK. While I have great
sympathy with people who want to participate in the IETF but have 
very limited travel budgets, I think *recent* f2f interaction is very 
important as a Nomcom qualification. So my hum is for no change to 
the draft.

   Brian

"Joel M. Halpern" wrote:
> 
> 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