Re: Comments on Composition and Comportment of the IETF Nominating Committee draft
Mallory Knodel <[email protected]> Mon, 13 Jul 2026 10:46:53 -0400
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.general |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <CABMXHrHGB9-jPhqkvThxy_Kxa5VASTjSw3c2Od_TowwKxNazjQ@mail.gmail.com> |
--000000000000007f1606567f2a50 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi all, Top posting to note that this document will be on the agenda for gendispatch. Comments now and then are both welcome. Thank you to commenters and gendispatch chairs, -Mallory On Wed, Jul 8, 2026 at 6:04=E2=80=AFPM S Moonesamy <[email protected]> w= rote: > Hi Vittorio, Brian, George, > At 07:00 AM 08-07-2026, Vittorio Bertola wrote: > >This is why I did not say that you should always prefer the most > >competent and expert candidates, but rather that you need to set a > >minimum threshold of competence and experience, somewhere mid-way > >between "at their first IETF meeting" and "been here 20 years". > > I included three points in my previous comments. The comments I have > seen have been on Point 1. > > I looked up the expertise required for an IESG member. The first one > I found was from 2009 [1]. It should be possible to get the > information for other years as that is in the datatracker. > > "It is also imperative that IESG members attend all IETF meetings, > typically arriving one or two days early. IESG members also > attend one, and sometimes two, IESG retreats per year." > > There is also: > > (a) Because of the large time and travel commitments, employer > support for a full two year term is essential. > > (b) Because of personal impact, including awkwardly timed > conference calls, an IESG member's family must also be > supportive. > > I also looked up the results from the surveys. Between 80% to 85% of > the people who provided information were from gender A. > > There has been discussions on Point (a), (b), and also the > composition of attendees/participants, etc. over the years. One of > the side effects of Point (a) is that it is a disqualification factor > for anyone who cannot get employer support for a full two year > term. I am not commenting on Point (b) as there are people who may > be better placed to comment on that. > > One of the issues in setting a high bar is that it could be viewed as > a disqualification factor. That is not to argue that there wouldn't > be a minimum threshold (re. somewhat along the lines of Vittorio's > comment). If I had to explain the level of expertise in the IETF > community, I would say that that a few of the subscribers to this > mailing list could write and submit a review within five minutes. I > would not argue that those subscribers should go away (there is a > parable from Chesterton which explains that). > > >Also, in past Nomcoms I was part of in other organizations, this was > >often seen as an aggregate assessment, e.g. you had to select three > >people for the same board and you strived to pick a mix of insiders > >and outsiders, engineers and business people, Western and Southern, > >etc. It was rare to achieve balance under all dimensions, but you > >tried to get as many as possible. > > I agree with the above. > > >This is also why I think that high level principles plus cultural > >commitment work better than hard quotas. > > It is not possible to see whether the high level principles worked if > there are no known targets. Setting a requirement (re. quota) would > be needed if the targets are being missed repeatedly. John Levine > commented as follows: "the only applicants are (to oversimplify only > slightly) two guys from the San Francisco suburbs". A switch would > be: the only applicants are two persons from same location. The > question is whether that would be a desirable change if the > requirement was introduced. > > At 09:35 PM 07-07-2026, George Michaelson wrote: > >Admittedly this probably says as much about me as it does about them > >but the point is, I think this runs against the "incumbency" issue. > >Yes, because to be a WG chair demands time, and because time as a WG > >chair demands prior time as an author, by the time you meet tech > >goals and understanding of IETF process to merit IESG you have been > >around a long time, but no, I don't think this is an overwhelming > >tendency to incumbents. > > > >I see new faces, new players. > > > >So tendency? Yes. possible. Actual eventuating circumstance? Less > >sure. Perhaps weighted by age/experience but also, a LOT of new faces. > > Nowadays, the information about whether someone has been a working > group chair, RFC author, etc. can easily be found in the > datatracker. The authorship listing does not mean that the person > was directly involved in the review/publication process. > > I agree with George that a person may find out that he/she has been > around for a long time when he/she is aware that he/she understands > the finer details. I would not use the word "merit" as it might > convey that the title is an award; it's a personal choice. The > weighting (re. above comment) could be one of several factors to consider= . > > I don't know most of the IESG or IAB members. I found out that a > person is an IESG member when I read "DISCUSS" emails. > > Regards, > S. Moonesamy > > 1. > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=3Dhttps-3A__datatracker.ietf.o= rg_nomcom_ann_1969_&d=3DDwIBAg&c=3DslrrB7dE8n7gBJbeO0g-IQ&r=3DkrANNudPSfUTE= f2kXiduBUqRjXhDsKNCASr1kibHLfs&m=3DLv0FWItoBoY_NDix8DYlA_hW0HyiPjx8MuKIUMx5= XLeRfMAlpV-mhMt7_oWKMjoc&s=3DX2xkxBT8rCJ1jP4Vs5BHW_3Y6tJonr8sQrs5fTkmXok&e= =3D > > > --000000000000007f1606567f2a50 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable <div dir=3D"ltr"><div>Hi all,</div><div>Top posting to note that this docum= ent will be on the agenda for gendispatch. Comments now and then are both w= elcome.</div><div>Thank you to commenters and gendispatch chairs,</div><div= >-Mallory</div></div><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote gmail_quote_container"><= div dir=3D"ltr" class=3D"gmail_attr">On Wed, Jul 8, 2026 at 6:04=E2=80=AFPM= S Moonesamy <<a href=3D"mailto:sm%[email protected]">sm+ietf@elandsys= .com</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"mar= gin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1= ex">Hi Vittorio, Brian, George,<br> At 07:00 AM 08-07-2026, Vittorio Bertola wrote:<br> >This is why I did not say that you should always prefer the most <br> >competent and expert candidates, but rather that you need to set a <br> >minimum threshold of competence and experience, somewhere mid-way <br> >between "at their first IETF meeting" and "been here 20 = years".<br> <br> I included three points in my previous comments.=C2=A0 The comments I have = <br> seen have been on Point 1.<br> <br> I looked up the expertise required for an IESG member.=C2=A0 The first one = <br> I found was from 2009 [1].=C2=A0 It should be possible to get the <br> information for other years as that is in the datatracker.<br> <br> =C2=A0 =C2=A0"It is also imperative that IESG members attend all IETF = meetings,<br> =C2=A0 =C2=A0 typically arriving one or two days early.=C2=A0 IESG members = also<br> =C2=A0 =C2=A0 attend one, and sometimes two, IESG retreats per year."<= br> <br> There is also:<br> <br> =C2=A0 =C2=A0(a) Because of the large time and travel commitments, employer= <br> =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0support for a full two year term is essential.<b= r> <br> =C2=A0 =C2=A0(b) Because of personal impact, including awkwardly timed<br> =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0conference calls, an IESG member's family mu= st also be<br> =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0supportive.<br> <br> I also looked up the results from the surveys.=C2=A0 Between 80% to 85% of = <br> the people who provided information were from gender A.<br> <br> There has been discussions on Point (a), (b), and also the <br> composition of attendees/participants, etc. over the years.=C2=A0 One of <b= r> the side effects of Point (a) is that it is a disqualification factor <br> for anyone who cannot get employer support for a full two year <br> term.=C2=A0 I am not commenting on Point (b) as there are people who may <b= r> be better placed to comment on that.<br> <br> One of the issues in setting a high bar is that it could be viewed as <br> a disqualification factor.=C2=A0 That is not to argue that there wouldn'= ;t <br> be a minimum threshold (re. somewhat along the lines of Vittorio's <br> comment).=C2=A0 If I had to explain the level of expertise in the IETF <br> community, I would say that that a few of the subscribers to this <br> mailing list could write and submit a review within five minutes.=C2=A0 I <= br> would not argue that those subscribers should go away (there is a <br> parable from Chesterton which explains that).<br> <br> >Also, in past Nomcoms I was part of in other organizations, this was <b= r> >often seen as an aggregate assessment, e.g. you had to select three <br= > >people for the same board and you strived to pick a mix of insiders <br= > >and outsiders, engineers and business people, Western and Southern, <br= > >etc. It was rare to achieve balance under all dimensions, but you <br> >tried to get as many as possible.<br> <br> I agree with the above.<br> <br> >This is also why I think that high level principles plus cultural <br> >commitment work better than hard quotas.<br> <br> It is not possible to see whether the high level principles worked if <br> there are no known targets.=C2=A0 Setting a requirement (re. quota) would <= br> be needed if the targets are being missed repeatedly.=C2=A0 John Levine <br= > commented as follows: "the only applicants are (to oversimplify only <= br> slightly) two guys from the San Francisco suburbs".=C2=A0 A switch wou= ld <br> be: the only applicants are two persons from same location.=C2=A0 The <br> question is whether that would be a desirable change if the <br> requirement was introduced.<br> <br> At 09:35 PM 07-07-2026, George Michaelson wrote:<br> >Admittedly this probably says as much about me as it does about them <b= r> >but the point is, I think this runs against the "incumbency" = issue. <br> >Yes, because to be a WG chair demands time, and because time as a WG <b= r> >chair demands prior time as an author, by the time you meet tech <br> >goals and understanding of IETF process to merit IESG you have been <br= > >around a long time, but no, I don't think this is an overwhelming <= br> >tendency to incumbents.<br> ><br> >I see new faces, new players.<br> ><br> >So tendency? Yes. possible. Actual eventuating circumstance? Less <br> >sure. Perhaps weighted by age/experience but also, a LOT of new faces.<= br> <br> Nowadays, the information about whether someone has been a working <br> group chair, RFC author, etc. can easily be found in the <br> datatracker.=C2=A0 The authorship listing does not mean that the person <br= > was directly involved in the review/publication process.<br> <br> I agree with George that a person may find out that he/she has been <br> around for a long time when he/she is aware that he/she understands <br> the finer details.=C2=A0 I would not use the word "merit" as it m= ight <br> convey that the title is an award; it's a personal choice.=C2=A0 The <b= r> weighting (re. above comment) could be one of several factors to consider.<= br> <br> I don't know most of the IESG or IAB members.=C2=A0 I found out that a = <br> person is an IESG member when I read "DISCUSS" emails.<br> <br> Regards,<br> S. Moonesamy<br> <br> 1. <a href=3D"https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=3Dhttps-3A__datatr= acker.ietf.org_nomcom_ann_1969_&d=3DDwIBAg&c=3DslrrB7dE8n7gBJbeO0g-= IQ&r=3DkrANNudPSfUTEf2kXiduBUqRjXhDsKNCASr1kibHLfs&m=3DLv0FWItoBoY_= NDix8DYlA_hW0HyiPjx8MuKIUMx5XLeRfMAlpV-mhMt7_oWKMjoc&s=3DX2xkxBT8rCJ1jP= 4Vs5BHW_3Y6tJonr8sQrs5fTkmXok&e=3D" rel=3D"noreferrer" target=3D"_blank= ">https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=3Dhttps-3A__datatracker.ietf.o= rg_nomcom_ann_1969_&d=3DDwIBAg&c=3DslrrB7dE8n7gBJbeO0g-IQ&r=3Dk= rANNudPSfUTEf2kXiduBUqRjXhDsKNCASr1kibHLfs&m=3DLv0FWItoBoY_NDix8DYlA_hW= 0HyiPjx8MuKIUMx5XLeRfMAlpV-mhMt7_oWKMjoc&s=3DX2xkxBT8rCJ1jP4Vs5BHW_3Y6t= Jonr8sQrs5fTkmXok&e=3D</a>=C2=A0 =C2=A0<br> <br> </blockquote></div> --000000000000007f1606567f2a50--