Subject: Re: [Iasa20] Reset on board expectations

From: "Livingood, Jason" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 16 May 2018 21:12:33 +0000

On 5/16/18, 3:55 PM, "iasa20 on behalf of Stephen Farrell" <[email-masked] on behalf of [email-masked]> wrote:
    I still don't see anything that can't be handled by
    having the board describe the skills needed each time a
    position needs filling, and then allowing the nomcom
    process those. 

[JL] On this point, we could always consider specifying something like "The LLC Board shall at their option, prior to any IESG, NomCom, and/or ISOC appointment process, develop recommendations on the skills, experience and/or people that the Board feels are necessary to the effective execution of their responsibilities. Such feedback shall be shared with each respective selection body, and Directors will make themselves available for meetings or other consultations with those selection bodies as needed."

---

From: Stephen Farrell <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 16 May 2018 22:23:20 +0100

On 16/05/18 22:12, Livingood, Jason wrote:
> On 5/16/18, 3:55 PM, "iasa20 on behalf of Stephen Farrell"
> <[email-masked] on behalf of [email-masked]>
> wrote: I still don't see anything that can't be handled by having the
> board describe the skills needed each time a position needs filling,
> and then allowing the nomcom process those.
> 
> [JL] On this point, we could always consider specifying something
> like "The LLC Board shall at their option, prior to any IESG, NomCom,
> and/or ISOC appointment process, develop recommendations on the
> skills, experience and/or people that the Board feels are necessary
> to the effective execution of their responsibilities. Such feedback
> shall be shared with each respective selection body, and Directors
> will make themselves available for meetings or other consultations
> with those selection bodies as needed."
> 

Seems like fine text. It sounds a bit too normative even though
I guess you didn't want that, e.g. it'd be fine if that were part
of a wiki somewhere. But it is worth thinking about whether or
not any part of that does need to be normative - there's one weird
thing when the IESG sends it's this-year's-skills stuff to the
nomcom - Alexa was the one to send it, and not the IESG, nor the
IESG liaison to the nomcom. I never knew if there's a good reason
for that (and never cared either really:-) I guess if someone does
know why that is, it might be useful to say so here in case there's
a lesson to learn.

Cheers,
S.

---

From: "Leslie Daigle" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 16 May 2018 17:28:04 -0400

It seems to me that there are 2 separate issues, and we haven’t agreed 
on architecture before we’re writing code…

The two separate issues I see are:

1/ Finding qualified people

2/ Selecting the right one(s) from a set of candidates.

For “1/“, I think the first thing to get agreement on is whether we 
need to be able to cast a broader net than just the usual IETF network 
of folks, and if yes, what are the ways we can do that?

For “2/“, the pushback on having the board appoint new people is 
that it’s potentially self-perpetuating and not community-inclusive; 
the argument against having the NomCom do it is that the job is far 
enough outside the wheelhouse of the randomly-selected IETFer to be 
confident it’s the right process (and, also, there’s the whole 
question of subjecting non-IETFers to the details of our NomCom 
sausage-making).

No amount of rule-specifying is going to get us out of this box until we 
get more agreement on those two points, it seems to me.

Leslie.
P.S.:  For the specific proposed text, IMO it’s probably necessary in 
any case, but certainly not sufficient to address the points above.

-- 

-------------------------------------------------------------------
Leslie Daigle
Principal, ThinkingCat Enterprises
[email-masked]
-------------------------------------------------------------------

On 16 May 2018, at 17:12, Livingood, Jason wrote:

> wrote:
> [JL] On this point, we could always consider specifying something like 
> "The LLC Board shall at their option, prior to any IESG, NomCom, 
> skills, experience and/or people that the Board feels are necessary to 
> the effective execution of their responsibilities. Such feedback shall 
> be shared with each respective selection body, and Directors will make 
> themselves available for meetings or other consultations with those 
> selection bodies as needed."
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> iasa20 mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/iasa20

---

From: "Leslie Daigle" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 16 May 2018 17:35:24 -0400

For “Finding qualified people”, I do think we need to be able to 
cast the net more broadly.  I think there may be many ways to do it, but 
having the board identify at least some candidates seems like one 
reasonable one.

Obviously, having the board identify potential candidates doesn’t mean 
they have to be the selecting body.

But, a variation on something Joe proposed earlier would be:  let the 
board identify up to 2 candidates themselves, for their _initial_ terms. 
  If those board members want to pursue any further terms, that would 
have to be done through IAB/IESG/NomCom or whatever other general 
appointment selection process seems reasonable.

Leslie.

On 16 May 2018, at 17:28, Leslie Daigle wrote:

> It seems to me that there are 2 separate issues, and we haven’t 
> agreed on architecture before we’re writing code…
>
> For “1/“, I think the first thing to get agreement on is whether 
> we need to be able to cast a broader net than just the usual IETF 
> network of folks, and if yes, what are the ways we can do that?
>
> No amount of rule-specifying is going to get us out of this box until 
> we get more agreement on those two points, it seems to me.
>
> Leslie.
> P.S.:  For the specific proposed text, IMO it’s probably necessary 
> in any case, but certainly not sufficient to address the points above.
>
> -- 
>

--

---

From: Bob Hinden <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 16 May 2018 14:53:45 -0700

Jason,

> On May 16, 2018, at 2:12 PM, Livingood, Jason <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> [JL] On this point, we could always consider specifying something like "The LLC Board shall at their option, prior to any IESG, NomCom, and/or ISOC appointment process, develop recommendations on the skills, experience and/or people that the Board feels are necessary to the effective execution of their responsibilities. Such feedback shall be shared with each respective selection body, and Directors will make themselves available for meetings or other consultations with those selection bodies as needed.”

While the text is good, I note that similar consultation with the IAOC and NomCom didn’t appear to work that well in practice.   Seems to me that something will need to change on the NomCom for this to work.

By comparison, the IAB does a good job selecting people for the ISOC Board.

Bob

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 17 May 2018 11:00:27 +1200

> on architecture before we’re writing code…

Yes

> of folks, and if yes, what are the ways we can do that?

On this one, I think we only need to state the principle here:
a broader net is essential.

Implementation can be left until later: things like sending the
call for nominations to places other than ietf-announce, for example,
or having LLC itself advertise for expressions of interest.

    Brian

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 17 May 2018 11:04:52 +1200

> appointment selection process seems reasonable.

Yes, I quite like that. If renewal of co-opted members is only possible
as part of the "normal" process, it becomes possible for the board
to bring in fresh expertise but gives community control for the
longer term.

    Brian

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 17 May 2018 11:11:04 +1200

> 2/ Selecting the right one(s) from a set of candidates.
...
> question of subjecting non-IETFers to the details of our NomCom 

And on 17/05/2018 09:53, Bob Hinden wrote:
...
>  I note that similar consultation with the IAOC and NomCom didn’t appear to work that well in practice.   Seems to me that something will need to change on the NomCom for this to work.

There seems to be some feeling that NomCom hasn't done so well
on the IAOC front. Is that true? If so, is it because NomCom 
contains the wrong sort of people, or is it because they've been
given the wrong sort of input and the wrong sort of candidates?

   Brian

---

From: Stephen Farrell <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 17 May 2018 00:23:12 +0100

Brian,

On 17/05/18 00:04, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> If renewal of co-opted members is only possible

I think the above is a bit too imprecise. It would be
entirely possible to bring in fresh expertise via the
nomcom process.

S.

---

From: Michael Richardson <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 16 May 2018 19:29:36 -0400

Leslie Daigle <[email-masked]> wrote:
    > board identify up to 2 candidates themselves, for their initial
    > terms. If those board members want to pursue any further terms, that
    > would have to be done through IAB/IESG/NomCom or whatever other general

So basically, a 1-term limit on LLC-board appointed members.
It's not my preferred way, but I can live with that.

--
Michael Richardson <[email-masked]>, Sandelman Software Works
 -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-

---

From: Michael Richardson <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 16 May 2018 19:31:16 -0400

Bob Hinden <[email-masked]> wrote:
    > While the text is good, I note that similar consultation with the IAOC
    > and NomCom didn’t appear to work that well in practice.  Seems to me
    > that something will need to change on the NomCom for this to work.

Is this a general comment, or is this in reference to a specific event in a
specific year?  It seems a pretty broad statement.

    > By comparison, the IAB does a good job selecting people for the ISOC

How would anyone know who wasn't there?

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 17 May 2018 11:44:33 +1200

> entirely possible to bring in fresh expertise via the

With a delay of up to 364 days. It's the ability to bring someone
in *right now* which seems lacking in our current procedures.

    Brian

---

From: Stephen Farrell <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 17 May 2018 00:47:42 +0100

Hiya,

> in *right now* which seems lacking in our current procedures.

I don't recall hearing a scenario in which it's necessary to
add a board member *right now* - can you describe such?

Ta,
S.

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 17 May 2018 12:03:50 +1200

> add a board member *right now* - can you describe such?

No. It's one of those pesky unknown unknowns.

   Brian

---

From: "John Levine" <[email-masked]>
Date: 16 May 2018 22:43:08 -0400

>From my viewpoint (non-Nomcom IAOC member) a lot of it is a
combination of the IAOC needing skills rather unlike any of the other
positions the Nomcom fills, and rather poor understanding in some
parts of what the IAOC can do.

The first problem will only get worse with the LLC, since it'll have
to do all the stuff the IAOC does (directly or through staff) as well
as the new things separated from ISOC.  Hence all the discussion of
other places that LLC managers might be recruited.

R's,
John

---

From: Spencer Dawkins at IETF <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 17 May 2018 08:18:19 -0500

For Stephen,

> other places that LLC managers might be recruited.

This is what I was trying to say in my reply yesterday, but since my own
knowledge of IAOC mostly comes from confirming one Nomcom candidate every
couple of years, John has a better understanding, and he said it better
than I did.

Spencer

---

From: Joseph Lorenzo Hall <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 17 May 2018 11:09:17 -0400

On Thu, May 17, 2018 at 9:18 AM, Spencer Dawkins at IETF
<[email-masked]> wrote:
> couple of years, John has a better understanding, and he said it better than
> I did.

This is the crux in terms of relying on nomcom for appointments to the
LLC Board. If it's true that nomcom is fantastic at certain kinds of
roles but not-so-fantastic at other kinds of roles, very new roles
such as the LLC Board would seem to line up on the
nomcom-is-probably-not-fantastic at appointing this kind of role.

I've heard John and Leslie both bring some aspect of this up over the
past 24 hours and I don't have the experience to assess for myself if
nomcom could take notes from the LLC Board such as "We need a board
member with broad non-profit fundraising experience; go get 'em!" and
deliver.

I'd love to hear more thoughts about that. Does the IESG/IAB having
two seats to appoint to the LLC Board provide a mechanism for the
Board to say, "Yeah, nomcom doesn't seem capable of finding us x, we'd
like to recommend [alice, bob, ...] as potential good folks for this
role, and yes one of these may not be a core IETF participant."

-- 
Joseph Lorenzo Hall
Chief Technologist, Center for Democracy & Technology [https://www.cdt.org]
1401 K ST NW STE 200, Washington DC 20005-3497
e: [email-masked], p: 202.407.8825, pgp: https://josephhall.org/gpg-key
Fingerprint: 3CA2 8D7B 9F6D DBD3 4B10  1607 5F86 6987 40A9 A871

---

From: "Joel M. Halpern" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 17 May 2018 11:16:28 -0400

As far as I can tell, the biggest thing the nomcom is not good at is 
recruiting.
So let's not count on them to recruit candidates for the LLC board.
That does not mean we can not use the nomcom for verification and 
selection.  The nomcom's I am familiar with have been careful and 
thorough.  No, they may not have the grounding.  But if told what is 
needed, they should be able to do the job.

If neither we nor the existing LLC board can tell the nomcom what we 
need for LLC board members,then we have a different problems.

Yours,
Joel

---

From: Lou Berger <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 17 May 2018 11:24:14 -0400

Hi,

> role, and yes one of these may not be a core IETF participant."

While I'm not opposed to the IESG having N positions to appoint, I do
think things work a bit better if just one group does appointments at
the same time - the current approach of having both bodies appoint IAOC
members at the same time does cause some confusion and certainly an
added level of coordination which I witnessed first hand as the IAOC's
liaison to nomcom. So this leads me to ask/wonder why the same
recommendation couldn't be handled by nomcom?

FWIW I do think having IESG do the appointment is radically better than
self appointments, just less optimal than appointment by a single body.

Cheers,
Lou

---

From: Bob Hinden <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 17 May 2018 08:24:53 -0700

Michael,

> On May 16, 2018, at 4:31 PM, Michael Richardson <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> 

It was a general comment from when I was the IAOC chair.  The IAOC would send a writeup on what were important skills, and I would meet with the NomCom to talk about it and answer questions.  This included that they needed to select people who could be an IAOC chair due to the limited number of IAOC members who were eligible.  We rarely got people who could be chair, some years only a few NomCom members would show up at the meeting, and I had the impression that they didn’t understood what I was saying or that they didn’t care a lot about this selection.

If I were to guess, NomCom members don’t have very much understanding of what the IAOC does, they have a better idea of what the IESG and IAB do.  If we continue the current approach to selecting NomCom members, I suspect it wouldn’t be different for the LLC board.

> How would anyone know who wasn't there?

I was on the board for 6 years and saw who the IAB appointed and how they performed.

Bob

---

From: Michael Richardson <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 17 May 2018 11:27:13 -0400

> member with broad non-profit fundraising experience; go get 'em!" and

Nobody ever proposed that nomcom would do recruitment.
That's not it's job.

-- 
]               Never tell me the odds!                 | ipv6 mesh networks [ 
]   Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works        | network architect  [ 
]     [email-masked]  http://www.sandelman.ca/        |   ruby on rails    [

---

From: "John Levine" <[email-masked]>
Date: 17 May 2018 11:50:08 -0400

>member with broad non-profit fundraising experience; go get 'em!" and

Hi, man of many hats here.  I was the ISOC observer on the nomcom in
Yokohama, and I saw them do a fine job of interviewing and evaluating
the candidates.  However, they could only interview and evaluate the
people that applied.  

The nomcom by its random nature is not very good at recruiting
candidates for specific jobs, so the IETF has a rather informal
non-process of getting people to apply for spots that are hard to
fill.  Anyone can encourage anyone to apply for any nomcom-filled
spot, and I can assure you that a great deal of quiet encouragement
goes on.  This is probably a feature rather than a bug, since a formal
recruiting process full of rules would likely work worse.

If LLC managers want to encourage people to apply for nomcom-selected
board spots, and to walk them through the process, they can just do
it, including helping the candidates write their applications and
reminding them when to call in for the interviews.  There's nothing
corrupt about that, since the nomcom still reviews the applications,
interviews the candidates, and makes the decision.

R's,
John

---

From: Spencer Dawkins at IETF <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 17 May 2018 11:47:05 -0500

So, at the risk of tempting Narten to start publishing weekly stats on
posts to this mailing list, I want to agree fairly strongly with Lou's note.

> recommendation couldn't be handled by nomcom?

If I might express an opinion here, there is a school of thought that says
the IESG should do what you have to be on the IESG to do, and nothing else.

Given that we started this Nomcom cycle at the IETF 101 plenary with
concerns about getting willing nominees for at least two areas, and we're
been rate-limiting the page count on formal telechat agendas since early
March, I'm not sure that giving the IESG more work to do is a great plan.

Given that the Nomcom is doing IAOC membership selections in parallel, you
KNOW you don't have to be on the IESG to do IAOC membership selection.

Given that BCP 101 in its current form is very clear that all IAOC members
represent the same community ...

   Although the IAB, the IESG, and the ISOC Board of Trustees choose
   some members of the IAOC, those members do not directly represent the
   bodies that chose them.  All members of the IAOC are accountable
   directly to the IETF community.

I'm not sure what problem splitting up responsibility for selection between
the IAB, IESG, and Nomcom is solving, and I've named problems that
splitting that responsibility creates.

Caveat 1 - I don't have the same concerns about the IESG serving as a
confirming body for Nomcom-selected candidates.

Caveat 2 - I don't have the same concerns about picking the initial board
members, only what happens after that.

Spencer

---

From: Ted Hardie <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 17 May 2018 10:11:52 -0700

In-line.

On Wed, May 16, 2018 at 7:43 PM, John Levine <[email-masked]> wrote:

> as the new things separated from ISOC.

That's the critical change in thinking we need, though; it will do it
*mostly* through staff.  This organization will not be limited to having a
single IAD, but can hire folks to do what is needed rather than relying on
the staff which ISOC already has on board.  We expect it will continue to
outsource the Secretariat functions, as a major example, and it may either
make fundraising an in-house job or an outsourced one as it chooses.  I
don't expect it draft legal documents--though it will presumably shift to
being the entity that retains counsel on behalf of the IETF and itself.

We have had a very odd idea of the IAOC skills for a while now, as it moved
from oversight into being an active management committee; the docs didn't
match the job, for one thing.  The new docs should say that the critical
functions:

1) Can set the goals for the staff to achieve.
2) Can evaluate when they have been achieved or make corrections when they
have not.
3) Can communicate with the rest of the IETF about what the goals should be
and how achievements on the current goals is going.

The further we stray from those core functions, the harder we're making it
look to ourselves.  Worse, the more likely it is that the LLC'c oversight
body will end up reverting to the idea that they should be an active
management committee.  We are not populating a C-suite here, and let's not
confuse ourselves again on that point.

regards,

Ted

> Hence all the discussion of

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 18 May 2018 08:34:29 +1200

> Nobody ever proposed that nomcom would do recruitment.

Isn't it? It's the NomCom that sends out the calls for nominations,
to IETF lists. That won't incite nominations from outside the normal
run of IETF participants. This has provably worked reasonably well
for IESG and IAB seats, and it's been alleged that it hasn't worked
so well for IAOC seats. I suspect it will work even less well for
LLC board seats. But we don't have another nominee recruitment process
that I'm aware of.

I think this needs attention; it's probably more important than the
question of which bodies pick and confirm the candidates. We definitely
need to seek nominations more widely. For example: via the ISOC Board,
the ISOC Advisory Council, and generally the management level at the larger
companies who send people to the IETF. 

Therefore, we need to clearly define whose job it is to seek out
nominations.

    Brian

---

From: Bob Hinden <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 17 May 2018 15:01:29 -0700

Ted,

> We have had a very odd idea of the IAOC skills for a while now, as it moved from oversight into being an active management committee; the docs didn't match the job, for one thing.  The new docs should say that the critical functions:
> 
> 2) Can evaluate when they have been achieved or make corrections when they have not.
> 3) Can communicate with the rest of the IETF about what the goals should be and how achievements on the current goals is going.
> 
> The further we stray from those core functions, the harder we're making it look to ourselves.  Worse, the more likely it is that the LLC'c oversight body will end up reverting to the idea that they should be an active management committee.  We are not populating a C-suite here, and let's not confuse ourselves again on that point.
> 

Let me ask a question.  The IAOC was created with a similar intent.  The name is, of course, the IETF Administrative Oversight Committee.  It was supposed to provide oversight.  Do we understand why it moved from oversight to what you describe as an active management committee.  I worry that unless we understand that, we are bound to have the new LLC Board evolve in the same direction.

It’s easy to perform oversight when everything is going well.  When it gets hard is when there are problems.  That is when the oversight group will start wanting to give direction to the staff and get involved in directing operations.   It is inevitable that there will be problems.  I haven’t see anything that will avoid this from happening again.

Bob

---

From: Ted Hardie <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 17 May 2018 15:25:09 -0700

Hi Bob,

On Thu, May 17, 2018 at 3:01 PM, Bob Hinden <[email-masked]> wrote:

> Ted,
>
> > We have had a very odd idea of the IAOC skills for a while now, as it
> moved from oversight into being an active management committee; the docs
> didn't match the job, for one thing.  The new docs should say that the
> critical functions:
> >
> > 3) Can communicate with the rest of the IETF about what the goals should
> be and how achievements on the current goals is going.
> >
> > The further we stray from those core functions, the harder we're making
> it look to ourselves.  Worse, the more likely it is that the LLC'c
> oversight body will end up reverting to the idea that they should be an
> active management committee.  We are not populating a C-suite here, and
> let's not confuse ourselves again on that point.
> >
>
> Let me ask a question.  The IAOC was created with a similar intent.  The
> name is, of course, the IETF Administrative Oversight Committee.  It was
> supposed to provide oversight.  Do we understand why it moved from
> oversight to what you describe as an active management committee.  I worry
> that unless we understand that, we are bound to have the new LLC Board
> evolve in the same direction.
>
> It’s easy to perform oversight when everything is going well.  When it
> gets hard is when there are problems.  That is when the oversight group
> will start wanting to give direction to the staff and get involved in
> directing operations.   It is inevitable that there will be problems.  I
> haven’t see anything that will avoid this from happening again.
>
> Let me start by saying that I was not on the IAOC until fairly recently,
so I certainly don't have insights into the whole history.  What insights I
have boil down to this:  ISOC's remit changed as it grew, and the IETF's
needs changed as its role shifted and some of its needs grew.  The
structure we built in IASA had certain aspects that really didn't allow for
administrative structures to change to accommodate either set of changes
(e.g. the limitation to a single staff member, and a requirement to
maintain a specific secretariat model).  As a result, we got some ad hoc
structures that then had their own institutional momentum.  Some of those
took the IAOC into other roles than oversight.

Having a separate organization doesn't automatically resolve that, of
course, but it does mean that the body responsible for oversight can
actually re-organize more readily in responses to changes in the
ecosystem.   That can help make sure that the organization grows in ways
that don't require the oversight body taking more operational roles.

>From a board perspective, I think that mean you need folks who are willing
to consider change, but I don't think what they do once they have
considered it really falls far outside the 3 bullets above.

Just my personal opinion,

Ted

Bob

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 18 May 2018 15:26:43 +1200

Brian

---

From: "Deen, Glenn" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 18 May 2018 07:25:17 +0000

Sent from my iPhone

> Therefore, we need to clearly define whose job it is to seek out

I fully with what Brian observes. Though I’m think this is suggesting that the existing nomcom isn’t the right place to have this recruiting done.   We need something new that understands the LLC very well and can recruit candidates.  That’s well beyond the current nomcom and will be a fair amount of work at least in the beginning 

Glenn

---

From: Stephen Farrell <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 18 May 2018 09:45:50 +0100

Hiya,

On 18/05/18 04:26, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> for IESG and IAB seats, 

FWIW, while I was on the IESG, it was mostly ADs and WG chairs
who arm-wrestled people into putting their names in the hat for
IESG positions. I'm not sure I'd describe that as recruitment:-)

So while there were some people who seemed to volunteer based on
seeing the nomcom mail, for the position with which I was familiar,
those were relatively few.

> and it's been alleged that it hasn't worked

I think the LLC board itself can do the equivalent to what I
described above and go out and convince people to put their
name in the hat. If we need to write that down somewhere as
a good thing for the LLC board to do, we can I guess.

My hope is that that'll be easier than is the case for IAOC
today, on the basis that we'll have made the job a proper
board-type job without the micromanagement that the IAOC seems
to have evolved to require.

I fully agree that we ought not expect the nomcom announcements
to be sufficient for good candidates to emerge, just as is the
case today already for at least people volunteering for IESG
positions.

Cheers,
S.

---

From: Spencer Dawkins at IETF <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 18 May 2018 09:47:31 -0500

I'm actually a "recovering" IETF process wonk, which means that I've
forgotten things I used to know. So, I could be wrong, but ...

> IESG positions. I'm not sure I'd describe that as recruitment:-)

I've seen quite a bit of arm-wrestling, both on and off the IESG, so part
of my experience matches Stephen.

As an AD, I work to balance "the community doesn't want leadership to
select the next round of leadership" with "this area works better with two
ADs than with one, and we're now on the second or third re-solicitation for
nominees". I hope I've done that appropriately.

> those were relatively few.

We have had conversations about what happens if a Nomcom simply can't find
a confirmable willing nominee, and I THINK our running code is that most
Nomcoms consider it their responsibility to fill positions they are
reviewing, and if there's anything they can do to make sure that happens,
they'll probably do it.

As a specific data point, I've been recruited as a nominee for another
position under review during interviews with Nomcom, so I know Nomcom
acting as a recruiter does happen.

Spencer

---

From: Bob Hinden <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 18 May 2018 11:12:55 -0700

Ted,

> On May 17, 2018, at 3:25 PM, Ted Hardie <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> Hi Bob,
> 
> Let me start by saying that I was not on the IAOC until fairly recently, so I certainly don't have insights into the whole history.  What insights I have boil down to this:  ISOC's remit changed as it grew, and the IETF's needs changed as its role shifted and some of its needs grew.  The structure we built in IASA had certain aspects that really didn't allow for administrative structures to change to accommodate either set of changes (e.g. the limitation to a single staff member, and a requirement to maintain a specific secretariat model).  As a result, we got some ad hoc structures that then had their own institutional momentum.  Some of those took the IAOC into other roles than oversight.
> 
> Having a separate organization doesn't automatically resolve that, of course, but it does mean that the body responsible for oversight can actually re-organize more readily in responses to changes in the ecosystem.   That can help make sure that the organization grows in ways that don't require the oversight body taking more operational roles.

I am willing to accept that, but I don’t think you responded to my concern.  One of the reasons the IAOC evolved away from oversight was that there were problems that weren’t addressed by staff.  So they tended to step in.  As I said, I don’t see anything that will prevent this from happening again.

Bob

> 
> From a board perspective, I think that mean you need folks who are willing to consider change, but I don't think what they do once they have considered it really falls far outside the 3 bullets above.
>