On Wed, Oct 26, 2011 at 2:50 PM, Peter Saint-Andre <[email protected]>wrote:
> On 10/26/11 1:47 PM, Fred Baker wrote: > > > > On Oct 26, 2011, at 8:38 AM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote: > > > >> (e.g., the NomCom > >> schedule is defined in terms of three meetings a year). > > > > no problem. We stop having the nomcom. > > Sure, we just set up a (two-tier?) membership structure and have all the > members vote. Easy. > [MB] You don't need a membership structure to have voting - you just allow anyone that has attended the requisite number of meetings per the Nomcom process to vote - i.e., if you are qualified to be a voting member of the Nomcom, you can vote. I personally believe that voting would be better than the current model. As it is, a very small percentage of the participants actually contribute to the process in the form of nominating or providing feedback: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-barnes-nomcom-report-2009-00 (section 6.2) So, making it easier to provide input in the form of a vote might actually get more folks caring about who the leaders are. It would also save a tremendous amount of work on the part of the folks that serve on the Nomcom. [/MB] [Also, ducking] Mary. > > > _______________________________________________ > Ietf mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf >
_______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
