On 20 Mar 2025, at 22:23, Michael StJohns wrote: > On 3/20/2025 9:53 PM, Salz, Rich wrote: >> >> >> That does not appear to be true. I can find it nowhere in RFC 8713. Why >> do you say it is required? >> >> There is a difference between what the rules officially say, and what the community expects. I would expect that if someone wasn’t picked, and they did not have an interview, that it would be highly likely they would file an appeal. The IETF community easily gets up in arms if someone suggests doing something out of the “norm”. (Ask me how I know :) >> >> 8713 is pretty out of date and needs to be updated. “A nominee may not know they were a candidate.” Really? :). Others are at https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/rfc8713 >> > I'm pretty sure that at least one nominee in each year for at least the last 5-10 years hasn't received an interview for good and sufficient reasons. Also, when dealing with the IAB nominations, I would expect at least a first pass to cull the herd based on the written record (e.g. questionnaire responses, datatracker info) before ever offering interviews. Perhaps that's changed more recently, but it makes little sense to spend time (expensive Nomcom time) on candidates lacking experience, knowledge or participation of the IETF. 1 out of 60+ nominees, is not a good sample. NomCom should really be able to reduce number of interviews to about 30ish most serious nominees. For that we need the community feedback to be done two weeks before the 3rd IETF. That is something that the community complained about, but what about the NomCom people and their time? Should they really be the ones who have to forego the participation in the 3rd IETF. Updating few things would be very helpful for future NomComs Dean > > Later, Mike
