Subject: draft-sullivan-nomcom-chair-select-00

From: Andrew Sullivan <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2022 00:54:05 -0500

Dear colleagues,

I write with my job hat on.  I'm employed by the Internet Society.

Part of my job here is to select the NomCom Chair.  I've been
uncomfortable about how that has worked in the past, and more than a
year ago I said I'd write a new process.  I failed at that goal, but
it's a new year so I've finally written this.  It's at
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-sullivan-nomcom-chair-select/.

I am eagerly requesting feedback on that draft _for things under my
control_.  The procedures in RFC 8713 give me a lot of latitude in how
to deal with this appointment.  They give me no control whatsoever as
to whether I _should_ be able to do this, who else should do it, and
so on.  Feedback of the form "Here's how NomCom should work for real,"
will be ignored, because they will not provide me guidance as to what
I should do.

Please also resist the temptation to tell me, "Tell someone else it's
their thing and promise to follow what they promise."  If the IETF
wants to modify RFC 8713, including removing my own role in this
selection, I don't imagine a universe in which I'd work to work to
foil that.  But similarly I am not willing to create an entirely new
consultative body (or new job for an existing consultative body)
without the community saying so.  This document is merely an outline
of how I plan to execute my duties as they're already defined.

I hope this will be a modest contribution to the IETF, and I look
forward to your suggestions.

_Please_ send me feedback directly and not copied to the list.  I
won't be able to follow discussion about this on the list except
sporadically, and I'm going to have to put this plan into action some
time in the coming weeks.  Thanks very much.

Best regards,

A

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
President & CEO, Internet Society
[email-masked]
+1 416 731 1261

---

From: Eliot Lear <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2022 07:34:38 +0100

Hi Andrew,

I read the draft, and while the procedure seems reasonable enough to me, 
even though I've been involved in this organization since 1988/1989, 
I've never actually served on a NOMCOM.  That stated:

How important is the chair role?  [I honestly have no idea.]

Is this something around which that the NOMCOM should simply 
self-organize?  Perhaps that's a fallback mechanism?

Eliot

---

From: Stewart Bryant <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2022 09:27:37 +0000

I think that this process assumes an “infinity” of able candidates queuing up to do the job.

I suspect that in reality the only way to get good candidates is to nicely ask a number of likely people and hope that one will say yes.

Stewart

> On 14 Feb 2022, at 06:35, Eliot Lear <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> Hi Andrew,
> 
> I read the draft, and while the procedure seems reasonable enough to me, even though I've been involved in this organization since 1988/1989, I've never actually served on a NOMCOM.  That stated:
> 
> Is this something around which that the NOMCOM should simply self-organize?  Perhaps that's a fallback mechanism?
> 
> Eliot
>

---

From: Andrew Sullivan <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2022 09:02:13 -0500

Hi,

>How important is the chair role?  [I honestly have no idea.]

I think it probably partly depends on the NomCom's own dynamics; but the Chair is ultimately responsible for the smooth functioning of the NomCom, so I'd say it's pretty important.

>self-organize?  Perhaps that's a fallback mechanism?

That would require a change to RFC 8713.  Certainly, if the community wants to make that change I would not oppose it, but it would be pretty hard to arrange as it works right now, since the Chair is responsible for operating the procedure by which the NomCom is seated.  So there's a bootstrap problem to this approach.  Regardless, it's definitely beyond the scope of this document, because I have no power to alter the process as it exists (and would refuse, if offered, to have that target painted anywhere in my vicinity, much less on my body).

Best regards,

A

---

From: Andrew Sullivan <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2022 09:04:30 -0500

Hi,

>I think that this process assumes an “infinity” of able candidates queuing up to do the job.

Could you say why you think that?  It certainly isn't my expectation.

>I suspect that in reality the only way to get good candidates is to nicely ask a number of likely people and hope that one will say yes.

That's the process we have now, and it has the obvious problem that it depends on the Internet Society President (at present, me) having a good list of "likely people".  Populating that list is what I'm trying to do.

Best regards,

A

---

From: "Joel M. Halpern" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2022 09:40:31 -0500

I like the idea of trying to avoid "familiarity capture".
However, I have two problems with the text as written.

The major problem I have is that it provides no  option for the ISOC 
President to go twist more arms if the set of volunteers is 
unacceptable.  I realize that allowing such fallback weakens the above 
protection.  But the whole system only works if we assume good faith on 
the part of the ISOC president, so I do not think the loss is significant.

As a lesser point, I would suggest changing the MUST have been a member 
of a  prior nomcom to a SHOULD (strongly) have been...  We have 
succeeded with nomcom chairs who had not served on prior nomcoms.

Yours,
Joel

---

From: Mary B <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2022 09:10:14 -0600

I think describing the criteria is a good thing.  And, it would certainly
be good to get a larger pool for chair selection, just as it would be to
get larger pools for Nomcom volunteers (e.g., less than 10% that regularly
attend meetings actually volunteer) and it would be good to get a larger
pool of Nominees for the positions to be filled (we had 3
AD positions this past round with a single nominee).

I don't know exactly what challenges you refer to when it comes to the
chair if they've not been a past member of a Nomcom.  That wasn't an issue
I identified in my Nomcom report:
https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-barnes-nomcom-report-2009-00.txt
I don't know how many chairs have not been past members of Nomcom in some
form.  I think I was probably the first.  And, it's not that I hadn't
volunteered to be on the Nomcom for the 9+ Nomcoms.  I figured with my luck
being chair was the only way I'd get on a Nomcom (I don't buy lottery
tickets).  But, I thought being chair and not having been on a prior Nomcom
was a positive because I brought in no bias into the part of the process
that is not documented in our detailed process procedures.   The chair has
no vote on the ultimate selection and the prior year's chair is there in
the case that you might have a chair that is going off the rails.   I do
think it's extremely important that whomever is selected as chair has a lot
of IETF experience to ensure that they have a very good understanding of
how things work.

I can tell you having just served on a Nomcom as a voting member that the
member's insight into what all is involved in serving as chair doesn't come
close to the amount of work and tasks involved.  It is one of the most
difficult roles in IETF in my opinion.    But, the overall outcome of the
process is more dependent on the voting members and the fact that only 10%
of the community is generally willing to volunteer for the role is a bigger
problem IMHO.  And, while I don't think it's been an issue in practice
having a broad range of experience amongst the voting members, it is
extremely important to have experienced IETF members as voting members.  We
had a document on this topic, as well as other challenges of Nomcom a
while back:
https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-crocker-nomcom-process-00.txt. I
think most of those are still relevant.

In short, I think chair selection, while probably a challenging task for
the ISOC chair, is the least of our problems when it comes to the integrity
of the process.   It likely would be very helpful to document how past ISOC
chairs have made their selection, but I don't think it's a good idea, nor
necessary, to open it up to volunteers, community feedback, etc.

Regards,
Mary

---

From: "Adrian Farrel" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2022 15:38:22 -0000

Andrew,

Thank you for writing this down. It helps us all understand the work you do
for us, and it clarifies the process. I particularly like the care you are
applying to preventing familiarity bias.

A few thoughts...

---

2.2 has
   The Internet Society President is strongly advised
   to require prior experience in a NomCom: experience indicates that
   there can be challenges for Chairs who have never participated in a
   NomCom in any capacity.

I wonder why 8713 did not set this requirement. 
I do think that this is very useful experience for a NomCom chair, but I am
not sure it is a requisite. There are many experienced IETFers who can read
the RFCs, listen to the experience and advice of past chairs, and could do a
passable job. (Let me suggest, without sucking-up, that it wouldn't be
beyond your own capabilities.)
So, maybe something for you to consider as an asset, but not a reason to
discourage candidates from being suggested to you.

---

2.2 has
   The Call for Candidates is to be posted at least to the IETF general
   mailing list and the announcement list.  Self-nomination will be
   encouraged.

This is great, but it doesn't say that nomination of others is also
encouraged (or discouraged). I hope it is your intention to allow one person
to suggest the name of another person.

---

I wonder whether a little more job description would go some way to
encouraging (self-)nominations. I think you probably have experience of the
type of questions that most people ask when you first approach them (for
example, how many hours, what period of the year, requirement to be able to
coordinate feline displacement...). If you were able to capture some of
this, at a very high level, it might help scope the role and encourage
nominations (while also reducing the nominations of people who would later
decline when they found out the truth).

Best and good luck,
Adrian

-----Original Message-----
From: ietf <[email-masked]> On Behalf Of Andrew Sullivan
Sent: 14 February 2022 05:54
To: [email-masked]
Subject: draft-sullivan-nomcom-chair-select-00

Dear colleagues,

Best regards,

A

---

From: Scott Bradner <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2022 10:46:36 -0500

historically the ISOC CEO has had to twist arms rather tightly in some cases - taking out that option
would seem a loss

Scott

> On Feb 14, 2022, at 9:40 AM, Joel M. Halpern <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> The major problem I have is that it provides no  option for the ISOC President to go twist more arms if the set of volunteers is unacceptable.  I realize that allowing such fallback weakens the above protection.  But the whole system only works if we assume good faith on the part of the ISOC president, so I do not think the loss is significant.
> 
> As a lesser point, I would suggest changing the MUST have been a member of a  prior nomcom to a SHOULD (strongly) have been...  We have succeeded with nomcom chairs who had not served on prior nomcoms.
> 
> Yours,
> Joel
>

---

From: "Salz, Rich" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2022 15:49:05 +0000

Very strongly agree with this.  There will be enough non-voting advisory members to help ensure that things don't go off the rails.

---

From: Eliot Lear <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2022 17:22:52 +0100

Yeah, the bootstrapping work would need to shift from the chair. I guess 
the underlying question here is this: do we (really you) have a problem 
getting chairs?  Do we need to find new methods? If so, then let's get 
on it.  And yeah, that would require an update of some form to 8713.  
I'm sorry I jumped into the solution space a bit fast.

Eliot

On 14.02.22 15:02, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
> That would require a change to RFC 8713.  Certainly, if the community 
> wants to make that change I would not oppose it, but it would be 
> pretty hard to arrange as it works right now, since the Chair is 
> responsible for operating the procedure by which the NomCom is 
> seated.  So there's a bootstrap problem to this approach. Regardless, 
> it's definitely beyond the scope of this document, because I have no 
> power to alter the process as it exists (and would refuse, if offered, 
> to have that target painted anywhere in my vicinity, much less on my 
> body).

---

From: Mary B <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2022 11:37:11 -0600

My view would be that arm twisting would still be required in the case that
the volunteer pool doesn't have other experience that is deemed important.
 In my view it's the other experience in IETF that is far more important.

On Mon, Feb 14, 2022 at 9:47 AM Scott Bradner <[email-masked]> wrote:

> President to go twist more arms if the set of volunteers is unacceptable.
> I realize that allowing such fallback weakens the above protection.  But
> the whole system only works if we assume good faith on the part of the ISOC
> president, so I do not think the loss is significant.
> >
> of a  prior nomcom to a SHOULD (strongly) have been...  We have succeeded
> with nomcom chairs who had not served on prior nomcoms.
> >
> > Yours,
> > Joel
> >

---

From: Andrew Sullivan <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2022 12:58:05 -0500

Hi,

On Mon, Feb 14, 2022 at 05:22:52PM +0100, Eliot Lear wrote:

>guess the underlying question here is this: do we (really you) have a 
>problem getting chairs?

It's significant work, yes, but that's not my main concern.  My main
concern is that even though I know a lot of fairly long-time
participants in the IETF, my own knowledge of and familiarity with
their current interests has waned really fast since I took my present
job.  And I started with an advantage.  My contract will end, and
someone new will take my place, and such a person might not come with
the advantage I did.  So I think it's important to try to set up some
kind of regular and well-understood process before such a new
President arrives, whenever that happens.

But even more important is that "knowledge and familiarity waning"
problem.  I kinda don't know anything any more, and I would like to
hope that there have been changes to the IETF population over the
three-and-change years I've been in this job.  That's all invisible to
me, even though someone who was a newcomer in Montreal in July 2018
could now be an experienced hand at the IETF whose views about the
NomCom Chair I probably need when finding candidates.  So I'm hoping
to build something that will allow for that input.

Finally, as a general matter I dislike insider clubs, and the current
selection mechanism is basically "Internet Society President picks
somehow".  That's just _bound_ to create insider bias, so I think
something that provides a mechanism by which someone unfamiliar might
be introduced to the process is good.

None of this is to say that the community shouldn't revise the whole
NomCom process to dismiss the Internet Society President altogether,
if the community wants that.  But I don't want to hold my breath for
that day, and this is something I can do without any of those changes
being necessaary.

Best regards,

A

---

From: 'Andrew Sullivan' <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2022 13:12:25 -0500

Hi,

>beyond your own capabilities.)

One bit of experience I bring to this is the year I was the IAB
liaison to the NomCom.  What was interesting to me there was how
surprised I was by several of the process things that touched us with
which I was unfamiliar.  I thought I had a pretty good handle on all
the IETF processes, but this area is pretty arcane.  Worse, because
8713 (and its predecessors) leave so many things open for each NomCom
to choose for themselves, all you have to go on are the notes from
prior Chairs and whatever observations the then-current Past Chair
might have.  (In some cases, you're on your own, because nobody
remembers how a given issue was sorted last time, and anyway all the
past records are sealed.)  This issue of hyper-secrecy tends to
discourage wide sharing, so I tend to feel that the experience in some
way of at least one NomCom is pretty important.  Finally, when Barbara
agreed a couple years ago to do this work (thank you Barbara!) despite
never having been in a NomCom in any capacity, she did so in part
relying on the idea that she could ask for certain advisors -- an idea
I supported strongly.  But someone in the community objected and the
procedures meant that the objection carried.  I felt terrible about
this, because I felt that I'd put Barbara in a position where she
thought she would have some resources that I was then unable to
provide.

To be fair, on the other hand, you're likely right that a hard
requirement is too strong (and it's not one I've always used myself).
It also really pinches the candidate pool.  So perhaps this should be
adjusted to "strongly encouraged" or something like that.  Thanks.

>to suggest the name of another person.

Yes, of course.  Thanks.

>encouraging (self-)nominations.

I think I could say what _I_ think the job is.  What would thrill me
more is if past Chairs had a wiki page or something about things that
are common issues that crop up for them.

Thanks for the comments!

Best regards,

A

---

From: Stewart Bryant <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2022 19:12:20 +0000

> On 14 Feb 2022, at 14:04, Andrew Sullivan <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> 

It has been my experience that finding people willing to commit significant time for community activity is getting harder each year.

We see that here in the IETF with the number of volunteers for the IESG - it is much less than it used to be.

I see exactly the same thing in other activities, for example leadership in the national amateur radio societies.

As far as I can see there has been a societal change that is driving this. People have more demands on their day job, and employers less flexible on gifting time. The level of perfection needed has increased as has the degree of vitriol in keyboard warrior criticism. Net result is a drop in volunteers.

In the specific case of the IETF my impression is that structural changes in the industry are making us less relevant which further fuels the downward spiral.

Hopefully I am wrong on all of these points.

Best regards

Stewart

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2022 09:13:17 +1300

On 14-Feb-22 19:34, Eliot Lear wrote:
...

> How important is the chair role?  [I honestly have no idea.]

Very important, I would say. A fair, conscientious and proactive chair
is necessary, and we've been very fortunate over the years. In other
words, the undefined process has worked pretty well, although I
fully understand Andrew's concerns.

The insider bias risk is considerably reduced by the fact that the
NomCom chair is non-voting.

On 15-Feb-22 03:04, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
...

> 
>> I suspect that in reality the only way to get good candidate>> is to nicely ask a number of likely people and hope that one will say yes.
>>
> 
> That's the process we have now, and it has the obvious problem
> that it depends on the Internet Society President (at present, me)
> having a good list of "likely people".  Populating that list is
> what I'm trying to do.

A public call for candidates seems reasonable. I am however rather
concerned by the idea of a published list and call for comments.
I can imagine a variety of unfortunate side effects of this,
some of which might undermine the eventual chair's neutrality.
I'd advise against for the first year, until the effect of a
public call for candidates is known.

     Brian Carpenter

---

From: Mary B <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2022 15:01:46 -0600

+1

On Mon, Feb 14, 2022 at 2:13 PM Brian E Carpenter <
[email-masked]> wrote:

> >> I suspect that in reality the only way to get good candidate>> is to
> nicely ask a number of likely people and hope that one will say yes.
> >>
> >

---

From: Andrew Sullivan <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2022 16:30:01 -0500

Hi,

>public call for candidates is known.

Thanks for this comment.  But how should I get feedback about the
people I don't know (or _from_ people I don't know) if I don't ask for
it?  Apart from just asking on the list, I'm sort of out of ideas for
that.

Best regards,

A

---

From: Toerless Eckert <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2022 23:02:02 +0100

Andrew:

a) I could not figure out from the draft or this mail thread under which
   track you want this document to become an RFC. Depending on the
   track choosen i guess the way how the document should be discussed
   could be as you indicated (one on one with you), or it should be
   discussed many-to-many in a group. So i'll just start addressing
   both you and [email-masked] until thats clear.

b) Thanks a lot for the work. 

c) I think the procedures described are pretty good and very diligent.
   However:

c.1) It is unclear to me why we would want these rules to apply to
   every ISOC President. I for once could see this perfectly well simply
   as a declaration by you, outlining the process you will follow. and
   making it "just" a declaration would make it easier for your successors
   to adjust/change the processes.

c.2) Maybe i am reading incorrectly between the lines, but
   "this represents a change to the existing process" sounds as if
   this document needs to become an RFC so that you could publically
   "moot" candidates. But thats not clear to me. Just because public
   "mooting" wasn't done so far doesn't seem to mean that you couldn't
   do it even without this document becoming an RFC defining requirements.
   Aka: i see nothing in the existing RFCs prohibiting the mooting.

c.3) The other key reason why i guess you wrote this is to establish
   even past your term a less insider-trading approach to the selection
   process. Which is admirable. But i again have to weight good intention
   against ever growing bureaucracy and RFCs piling on requirements
   because all of our RFC requirements especially those about process
   are legislated over by anal retentive engineers forever.

In summary: IMHO, this doc might work better if it was just a declaration
of how you will do things without raising actual process requirements
against your successors or you.  I think even in that form the document
would be making any successor select a process that attempts its best to
make selection less biased and less insider-trading.

Cheers
    Toerless

-- 
---
[email-masked]

---

From: Andrew Sullivan <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2022 17:09:57 -0500

Hi,

On Mon, Feb 14, 2022 at 11:02:02PM +0100, Toerless Eckert wrote:

>   track you want this document to become an RFC.

I don't even know that it should become an RFC, so "which track" is
premature.  But it could never be more than Informational anyway.

>   every ISOC President.

I don't have any expectation that it would be possible for me to make
rules for successors in my job.  They'll do what they want.  If the
community decided to make rules in the actual NomCom procedures that'd
be different; but if the community wanted to change those procedures
and tried to bind the Internet Society President too tightly I'd
suggest gently that it would be unwise, since there wouldn't be
anything the community could do if the Internet Society President
didn't comply.

>   I for once could see this perfectly well simply
>   as a declaration by you, outlining the process you will follow.

That's all I intend this to be.

>   Aka: i see nothing in the existing RFCs prohibiting the mooting.

No, I agree.  I think it is important to document that I plan to do
this mostly so that this very conversation can happen, because it is
certainly a violation of the long practice.  As many of us know, in
the IETF arena (and also the Internet Society one), "It's always been
done that way," is often not treated as a fallacy and often instead as
a valid form of argument.  I think just going ahead and making a
change without any discussion is a way for me to get a lot of angry
mail, and I don't need to invent new ways for that to happen :D

Best regards,

A

---

From: Donald Eastlake <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2022 17:34:45 -0500

This seems like a reasonable experiment.

Unless I missed it, I think there is no prohibition in this against
picking a former NomCom Chair. I'm pretty sure that has never been
done and I think it should be prohibited.

Thanks,
Donald
===============================
 Donald E. Eastlake 3rd   +1-508-333-2270 (cell)
 2386 Panoramic Circle, Apopka, FL 32703 USA
 [email-masked]

---

From: Toerless Eckert <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2022 23:58:58 +0100

On Mon, Feb 14, 2022 at 05:09:57PM -0500, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
> As many of us know, in

Tourist tip of the day: Get your favourite meme in german while in vienna:

https://www.spreadshirt.at/shop/home-living/tassen-becher/das+haben+wir+schon+immer+so+gemacht/

The full german triptych is:

Das haben wir schon immer so gemacht  - We have always done it this way
Das haben wir noch nie anders gemacht - We have never done it differently
Da koennte ja jeder kommen            - Who are you (to propose change) ?

Cheers
   toerless

---

From: "Salz, Rich" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2022 16:02:50 +0000

>  Finally, when Barbara
    procedures meant that the objection carried.

I am confused by this.  Section 4.3 of RFC 8713 [1] says "Any committee member may propose the addition of an advisor to participate in some or all of the deliberations of the committee. The addition must be approved by the committee according to its established voting mechanism. Advisors participate as individuals."  Was the concern that there was no vote?

[1] https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8713.html#section-4.3-2

---

From: 'Andrew Sullivan' <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2022 11:42:47 -0500

>I am confused by this.  Section 4.3 of RFC 8713 [1] says "Any committee member may propose the addition of an advisor to participate in some or all of the deliberations of the committee. The additio…

There couldn't be a vote at the time because the NomCom hadn't been seated yet, and there was a lot of other drama about the whole thing so it turned into one of those IETF Big Deals for about six people that wasn't worth spending a lot of time on, if my memory serves correctly.

A

---

From: Stephen Farrell <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2022 16:51:54 +0000

Hi Andrew,

I think you're probably right that some more guidance
for future ISOC presidents is a good thing.

I like the idea of asking for volunteers.

With others I'm less keen on the idea of publishing a
long list of volunteers - we have a history of seeing
some people volunteer for things for which they're not
at all qualified and it doesn't seem useful to me to
extend the set of things for which such people can have
their names listed.

I do like the idea of publishing a short-list (of
people that the ISOC president considers qualified)
and soliciting feedback on that. It ought be made
clear though that that's an optional step - there
could well be years where there's only person who
is both qualified and available, or, people on the
short-list might become unavailable - so it ought
still be considered nominal if a noncom-chair is
just announced as happens today.

Lastly, I also agree that previous nomcom experience
while desirable is not the main qualification - the
previous year's chair and liaisons can help with that
as needed IMO. Plenty of experience in the IETF seems
to me more likely to be a better requirement.

Cheers,
S.

---

From: Michael Richardson <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2022 12:45:40 -0500

> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-sullivan-nomcom-chair-select/.

I read your document.    Who would approve this document after review?

I agree that it doesn't contradict anything that has been in the past.
I really can't judge how having an open list will affect things.
I'm not sure it will improve things, but I'm also not convinced it will have
an easily observable negative effect.  I see a long thread about this, which
I have avoided reading as yet.

What I noticed is that your document did not do is specify any kind of timeline.

Allison and later I, when Kathryn was new, tried to have the new nomcom chair
selected prior to the November meeting, rather than around the March meeting.
The idea was that the new chair ("chair-elect") could be invited by the
existing cmte to observe and learn.   There were objections to this that it
turned a ~20 month appointment (March year 1 to November year 2 as
past-chair),  into a ~25 month appointment (November year 0 to November year 2).
I felt that this wasn't that big a deal:  most of the November/April year 0/1
time would be idle, and the learning curve would be so much softer that it
would not be a problem.

Of course, appointing someone who was a voting member in year 0 (as I was,
for instance), makes it much easier for everyone.

Another thing that I think is important is for the ISOC or LLC to have a
bit more funds to support the nomcom chair.  The secretariat already tries to
comp/uprade the nomcom chair's room at the hotel if they can, but this is an
informal arrangement.   It would be nice if the travel and IETF fee could be
formally included.  Food isn't an issue: the nomcom gets overfed :-)
I don't think that the nomcom's time can easily be compensated, so I would
avoid that.  But at least, that would open the pool of available people a
bit.

    > of how I plan to execute my duties as they're already defined.

The only real thing that could work would be for a previous nomcom to
select/voluntold/etc. one of their members for next year.

--
Michael Richardson <[email-masked]>   . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting )
           Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide

---

From: Michael Richardson <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2022 12:52:11 -0500

> Perhaps that's a fallback mechanism?

The chair has to run the random selection process.
It's a rather important part.
So, we can't self-organize that part.

An alternate (RFC8713 changing part) process could be to have the nomcom
self-organize, and then, the previous year's chair could run the random
selection process.  That would require some non-trivial edits, but mostly it
would just be moving text around.

---

From: Michael Richardson <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2022 12:59:59 -0500

> was a positive because I brought in no bias into the part of the

Like the various T-shirts having pseudo-concert tours, which are really lists
of invasations...

_Join the NomCom (as chair even) and help pick ADs, before the NomCom picks
you as an AD_

:-)

    > problem IMHO.

I agree with you.
Picking chairs would be easier if we had more participation.

    > necessary, to open it up to volunteers, community feedback, etc.

I mostly agree with you.

---

From: Michael Richardson <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2022 13:03:21 -0500

> thought she would have some resources that I was then unable to

I am unclear how we reached rough consensus on this question.
But, perhaps we could formalize this into a clear (written) NDA on the part
of past chairs to be available to help.

    > are common issues that crop up for them.

Wiki's are wonderful, but a two page job description with a document owner
would be better.

---

From: Michael Richardson <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2022 13:06:55 -0500

> done and I think it should be prohibited.

Why should we prohibit this?
We have 23+ experienced nomcom chairs, some of whom might be retired now and
available.   It's not like it's a voting position.

(Not sure I would agree to do it again)

---

From: "Salz, Rich" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2022 18:39:01 +0000

Sure we could as it's a verifiable mechanical process.

---

From: Andrew Sullivan <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2022 13:49:08 -0500

>I read your document.    Who would approve this document after review?

I would :)  It's a statement of my intent, in effect.

>What I noticed is that your document did not do is specify any kind of timeline.

The timeline is specified in RFC 8713.

>time would be idle, and the learning curve would be so much softer that it

Well, Kathy told me that she tried it but it didn't work because
people objected to the service duration (especially since the
commitment is 2 years, effectively, due to the Past Chair role).

>informal arrangement.

I actually thought about offering an honorarium to try to induce
people to take this job, but as soon as I mooted that suggestion I got
some pretty angry email so I abandoned it.  If the IETF wants to waive
the meeting fees or pay travel or so forth, I think that's something
for the IETF to determine and not me, so it's out of scope for this document.

Best regards,

A

---

From: Mary B <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2022 13:07:07 -0600

> for the IETF to determine and not me, so it's out of scope for this
[MB] Past Nomcoms had a dinner at the March IETF that was part of the
Nomcom budget.   So, that was at least something to show the work was
appreciated.  And, in general leadership is given some sort of gift and
given plaques when they've served 2 or more years, so it does seem
appropriate that Nomcom chairs, who also serve the community for 2 years,
also get some token recognition other than a name on slides.  [/MB]

---

From: Behcet Sarikaya <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2022 16:11:36 -0600

Hi Folks,

I read the draft.
Overall I think, it is OK.
However,
in one place it says: The NomCom Chair has historically been somewhat
difficult to fill
Despite that observation, I don't understand how the process described in
Andrew's draft is gonna make it easy? I.e. making a longer list while even
finding one is difficult?

Behcet

---

From: Victor Kuarsingh <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2022 21:25:34 -0500

> available.   It's not like it's a voting position.

I would tend to agree that prohibiting this may narrow our options without
a stronger reason as to why this should be the case.  Perhaps its just
perception, or maybe there is a good technical reason why to take such a
position.  We allow people to be on the NOMCOM more than once.  Chairing is
not an easy job and requires proficiency in various areas - so I think
keeping our options open makes sense.

Given sufficient time between potential stints, I think it would provide a
way to ensure we are finding able and capable people to serve as chair.

regards,

Victor K

---

From: Jari Arkko <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2022 19:00:33 +0200

Hi Andrew,

Thanks for doing this, it is important to document how things work (or should work), and it is also important that we continue to make the IETF work even more as an open organisation where, for instance, people selection tasks have an opportunity for some community suggestions and participation.

I definitely think a public call for volunteers or nominations should be a part of the process.

Like a few others, I’m a bit less decided about the public list of candidates and call for feedback. I’ve never been in the Nomcom and never witnessed how the finding of the chair happens. Although, as an insider I’ve been asked by some CEOs how I’d feel about XYZ as a chair, and I’ve provided by opinion. I’m curious what the running code for the picking is, actually. There’s a set of candidates you happen to know, and you finally manage to twist one arm, and then we have the answer? Or is it typical that there’d be multiple willing ones, and that you’d have a choice? I think it is important that we give you all the tools you need to do the public call for candidate nominations, and the arm twisting. Slightly concerned that if we focus too much on the later stages of the process, then the earlier stages suffer.  Then again, a good nomcom chair candidate probably shouldn’t be one that feels their candidacy or role be somehow questioned just because there was also another candidate and he or she got picked instead. But, I’m just afraid that we should be prepared for a call for candidates… followed by a very long silence where you attempt to arm twist people so that you would get at least one name to choose from. But maybe the public candidate list could even be good for your arm-twisting efforts, because just saying “yes” to you wouldn’t mean that you’d actually get picked in the end.

Anyway, on balance I agree that we should move to a model where candidates or the potential person to be selected is published and there’s an opportunity to send feedback. As you suggested. That just seems like good governance. But hopefully what I said above provides a bit of explanation of the hesitation some of us are feeling.

On the requirements for the position — can be good to document them, but please don’t constrain the selection pool too much!

Jari

---

From: Donald Eastlake <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2022 12:10:57 -0500

> available.   It's not like it's a voting position.

So you would be fine with someone being NomCom chair for 3 or 4 years
in a row? Should we just find someone good at it and make them
permanent NomCom Chair?

I think having fresh eyes, having the Chair and previous Chair be
different people, etc., is a good thing. I've been a NomCom Chair and
have been a voting member multiple times. In my opinion, the Chair has
a lot of subtle influence. Maybe prohibiting anyone from serving in
that position twice is too harsh but it should be a good long while
before they could be Chair again, like maybe 10 years.

Thanks,
Donald

---

From: Robert Sparks <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2022 12:57:52 -0600

On 2/15/22 1:07 PM, Mary B wrote:
> appreciated.  And, in general leadership is given some sort of 
> gift and given plaques when they've served 2 or more years, so it does 
> seem appropriate that Nomcom chairs, who also serve the community for 
> 2 years, also get some token recognition other than a name on slides.  
> [/MB]
>
>
This seems a good place to remind ourselves that there have now been 
several nomcoms who didn't get to have dinner (yet).

RjS

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2022 08:49:27 +1300

> before they could be Chair again, like maybe 10 years.

Ten years is a long time, unnecessarily long IMHO. I think a two year
stand down would be enough; and it seems implausible that anybody would
be willing to repeat so soon anyway.

     Brian

---

From: Bob Hinden <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2022 12:05:39 -0800

Brian,

> On Feb 16, 2022, at 11:49 AM, Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 

I think two years isn’t enough, given current practice is that the previous years chair in usually on the NOMCOM as an advisor for the next year.

I do agree that it is implausible that anyone would want to serve again so soon.

Bob

---

From: Michael Richardson <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2022 17:06:25 -0500

Donald Eastlake <[email-masked]> wrote:
    >> Donald Eastlake <[email-masked]> wrote: > Unless I missed it, I
    >> think there is no prohibition in this against > picking a former
    >> NomCom Chair. I'm pretty sure that has never been > done and I think
    >> it should be prohibited.
    >>
    >> Why should we prohibit this?  We have 23+ experienced nomcom chairs,
    >> some of whom might be retired now and available.  It's not like it's a
    >> voting position.

    > in a row? Should we just find someone good at it and make them

Donald, that's a silly strawman, and you know it.

The ISOC president still gets to apply judgement.

And you can't be nomcom two years in a row: that would leave no space for the
past chair.  So, you'd need at least two NomCom chairs for life.