Re: Comments on Composition and Comportment of the IETF Nominating Committee draft
Mallory Knodel <[email protected]> Wed, 22 Jul 2026 06:47:26 -0400
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.general |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <CABMXHrHLfQeBm+G4h-hXTPyYB4BfyHz--MoO388Omdu-eSwY+A@mail.gmail.com> |
--0000000000002fd174065730de7d Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi all, Following today's dispatch of this draft to [email protected], I have two requests: 1. To the community: Please join this list to continue support this draft or add points for consideration. 2. To the gendispatch chairs and/or Roman: this is a closed WG which means that while there is a list, there is no chair. I requested in today's session that there be persons responsible for determining rough consensus on this document for publication. That request is outstanding. Please advise. Thanks everyone, -Mallory On Mon, Jul 13, 2026 at 10:46=E2=80=AFAM Mallory Knodel <mallory.knodel@nyu= .edu> wrote: > 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]>= wrote: > >> 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 conside= r. >> >> 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.= org_nomcom_ann_1969_&d=3DDwIBAg&c=3DslrrB7dE8n7gBJbeO0g-IQ&r=3DkrANNudPSfUT= Ef2kXiduBUqRjXhDsKNCASr1kibHLfs&m=3DLv0FWItoBoY_NDix8DYlA_hW0HyiPjx8MuKIUMx= 5XLeRfMAlpV-mhMt7_oWKMjoc&s=3DX2xkxBT8rCJ1jP4Vs5BHW_3Y6tJonr8sQrs5fTkmXok&e= =3D >> >> >> --0000000000002fd174065730de7d Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable <div dir=3D"ltr"><div>Hi all,</div><div>Following=C2=A0today's dispatch= of this draft to=C2=A0<a href=3D"mailto:[email protected]">elig= [email protected]</a>, I have two requests:</div><div>=C2=A01. To th= e community: Please join this list to continue support this draft or add po= ints for consideration.</div><div>=C2=A02. To the gendispatch chairs and/or= Roman: this is a closed WG which means that while=C2=A0there is a list, th= ere is no chair. I requested in today's session that there be persons r= esponsible=C2=A0for determining rough consensus on this document for public= ation. That request is outstanding. Please advise.</div><div>Thanks everyon= e,</div><div>-Mallory</div></div><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote gmail_quote_= container"><div dir=3D"ltr" class=3D"gmail_attr">On Mon, Jul 13, 2026 at 10= :46=E2=80=AFAM Mallory Knodel <<a href=3D"mailto:[email protected]"= >[email protected]</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_= quote" style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,= 204);padding-left:1ex"><div dir=3D"ltr"><div>Hi all,</div><div>Top posting = to note that this document will be on the agenda for gendispatch. Comments = now and then are both welcome.</div><div>Thank you to commenters and gendis= patch chairs,</div><div>-Mallory</div></div><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote">= <div dir=3D"ltr" class=3D"gmail_attr">On Wed, Jul 8, 2026 at 6:04=E2=80=AFP= M S Moonesamy <<a href=3D"mailto:sm%[email protected]" target=3D"_blan= k">[email protected]</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_= quote" style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,= 204);padding-left:1ex">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> </blockquote></div> --0000000000002fd174065730de7d--