Re: Comments on Composition and Comportment of the IETF Nominating Committee draft

Thank you for the review! More:

On Mon, Jul 6, 2026 at 20:43 S Moonesamy <[email protected]> wrote:

> Hi Mallory,
>
> I read the draft on "Composition and Comportment of the IETF
> Nominating Committee".  Section 2 states that:
>
>   "All attempts to ensure gender representation in the nomcom should
> include:
>    a. increase participation in the community from women and non-binary
>       individuals so that the eligible pool is more gender diverse.
>    b. encourage eligible women and non-binary members of the community
>       to accept selection to the nomcom."
>
> There is still the three out of five meetings attendance requirement
> (RFC 9389).  That requirement and the eligibility criteria for the
> eligible pool does not directly prevent all of the individuals who
> could fit within (a) or (b) from being in the pool.  Could the
> problem be a lack of encouragement for individuals within (a) or (b)
> to attend meetings?
>

Perhaps. I think over the years we have been discussing this draft many
good ideas have been shared. I don’t think this draft should try to do all
of them, or any beyond a narrow extension of the representation rule. It
doesn’t trade anything off, whereas this suggestion might.


> Section 3 of the draft cites the ICANN Expected Standards of
> Behavior.  It is not a small set of practices which applies to hiring
> committees.  One of the points in the draft (last paragraph of
> Section 3.1) is about "explicit standard for non-discrimination".  It
> reminds me of how that was tested previously.
>

I’m not sure I remember. Could you elaborate this comment please?


> Section 3.1 lists a personal conflict-of-interest rule.  It would
> create a perception of bias if I evaluated a person with whom I
> shared some financial relationship.  The personal relationship part
> is somewhat of a dilemma.  Person A and Person B were sitting at the
> same table in a restaurant.  Person A then goes to the evaluation
> session which is run by Person B and Person C.  How does it look?
>

Disclosure of interest to the chair, who then decides if there’s a
conflict. Simple recusal.


> The first reference returned the following error:
>
>    $ curl -I
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__hbr.org_2016_04_how-2Dto-2Dtake-2Dbias-2Dout-2Dof-2Dinterviews&d=DwIBAg&c=slrrB7dE8n7gBJbeO0g-IQ&r=krANNudPSfUTEf2kXiduBUqRjXhDsKNCASr1kibHLfs&m=Q0Jg92eC89nEvkib34E-ZQRWLUywuzDHdox41T-hAesqARMh7cxaKHVPRsJEmOe_&s=lKDF411sn6a5HSLqcFyHjaWkCIejcq2mLyK25_5YrYA&e=
>    HTTP/2 404
>

It’s here. I’ve edited the main copy.
https://hbr.org/2016/04/how-to-take-the-bias-out-of-interviews

Thanks
-M



> Regards,
> S. Moonesamy
>
>