On Thu, Mar 7, 2013 at 5:23 PM, Spencer Dawkins
<spen...@wonderhamster.org> wrote:
> On 3/7/2013 5:01 PM, Ted Hardie wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, Mar 7, 2013 at 1:56 PM, Joel M. Halpern <j...@joelhalpern.com>
>> wrote:
>
>
>>> One of the interesting things is that the nomcom does not in practice
>>> have a
>>> way to tell the community exactly what it decided the job requirements
>>> are.
>>
>>
>> Why is the Nomcom report not a mechanism to do this?
>
>
> Ted,
>
> I just sent Joel a note about this privately, but since you mention it ...
>
> I think part of the reason may be that if there's a gap between the job
> description that the willing nominees saw before they said they were willing
> to be considered and the job description that the Nomcom actually used, you
> might not end up with the same willing nominees in both cases. (*)
>
> So the Nomcom report at the first IETF meeting of the year would be a good
> place to talk about what got changed, but too late for nominees who were a
> better match for the Nomcom's description than the initial description to
> agree to be considered.
[MB] Personally, I don't think the .ppts at the plenary should be the
only "Nomcom report". It's really hard to tease things out from
bullet points. Per my earlier note, I believe the community should
expect that the nomcom chair produce a written report in a form
similar to what had been done previously - e.g., 2009-2010 and
2008-2009 were the last two I am aware of. That would allow the
community to read the report and discuss things rather than make
assumptions about bullet points during a live meeting. [/MB]
>
> Thanks,
>
> Spencer (**)
>
> (*) Ideally, you end up with better willing nominees if they know the
> description Nomcom will be using
>
> (**) I've been on one Nomcom as IAB liaison, and never as a voting member
