Re: One more comments on the process draft

[Lixia Zhang <lixia@CS.UCLA.EDU>]

> 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.

Full agreement.

My concern is a different one: one year is too short a period to both gain
an adequate understanding of the IETF process and, perhaps more importantly,
to get to know individual participants well enough for nomcom purpose.  Over
the years I have talked to many new comers, a common response is a feeling
of somewhat lost in the sea for the first couple times.

I've also served on nomcom twice myself, and my observation was that junior
people (not in age but in IETF participation) who did not know much about
the candidates deferred to a few strong voices of those who know better.  We
want the nomcom results coming from all 10 voting members (at least majority
of them for each candidate), not a small subset plus nodding heads.

But I MUST apologize again that my comments were late.  As I said I would be
happy to raise them during IETF last call if this group feels it's too late
to consider.

 
> So my hum is for no change to the draft.
> 
>  Brian