At 05:46 PM 3/16/2008, Ole Jacobsen wrote:
" The confirming bodies should not be concerned with the way the
Nomcom got to the point of nominating someone (at least not during
the process), but they are there to examine the nomination and
nominee and to determine if - in the confirming body's best judgement
- the nominee is acceptable for the position."
And yet you believe that ALL the information provided by a candidate
to the nomcom should be freely available to the confirming bodies?
That's not actually what I said. What I said was the list of information
requested by the IAB in the referenced document was reasonable and appropriate.
But let's break down "ALL" for a minute
A candidate provides data that is either a) relevant to his selection by the
Nomcom or b) is not relevant. If the Nomcom relies on a piece of information
provided to it by the candidate (lots of possibilities, but lets try something
like "I currently work for ABC company - and I realize the other AD also works
there, however I'm leaving my current job on X date and moving to Y. My new
employer has agreed to sponsor me."),then its relevant. I'm unsure how the
confirming body confirms the candidate without also being apprised of this
information. I can do more examples, but my personal belief is that any
information a candidate provides that the Nomcom relied upon to select the
candidate is fair game for the confirming body. In general though, I think the
IAB struck a good balance with what it wanted.
The only thing at issue here is: What information did the candidate
think would be forwarded to the confirming body and what information
did he/she have a reasonable expectation would stay within the
Not really. As has been pointed out numerous times before, the confirming
bodies are within the "cone of silence" of the nominations process. This
interpretation of the confirming bodies as adversaries to the Nomcom that
shouldn't ever see the raw material is fairly recent - 5-6 years maybe.
Ask any given candidate about whether or not they anticipated their responses
to the questionnaire were or were not fair game for the confirming body and I
expect you'll get a "huh"? I know if I submit something to the process, I
expect it will be used where it needs to be used to get me confirmed. Why,
given any reasonable reading of 3777 (or its predecessors), would I think
This may not require a new process RFC, it may simply require a
questionnaire with a "confidential" section.
A "Please don't tell the IAB but you should know..." section? And what exactly
would you expect a candidate to put in this section? I'm not saying its a bad
idea, but I'm having problems conceiving of information that the Nomcom should
consider that the Confirming body should not.
If you're talking about information provided in confidence to the Nomcom as
commentary by one candidate on another - that's a whole other matter and has
its own set of problems. But I think that's not what you're talking about here?
The rest of your note isn't worth responding to since you choose to
use such phrases as "FUD" and "HOG WASH". Sorry Mike, I would have
expected better from you!
And I would have thought better of you as well. I would have expected you to
consider my terms, then consider the tone of Dondeti's text. He said:
I believe that the IAB's
interpretation of 3777 on the matter of the confirmation process sets a
dangerous precedence whereby one of the confirming bodies could require
that the nomcom provide (samples of) verbatim feedback.
I identified this as FUD and included my opinion (strongly stated) that his
opinion was unsupported by the facts. I cited the particular items the IAB had
requested, and noted that nothing in those items were "dangerous" (and were in
fact due dilligence) and there was no indication that the IAB had asked for,
would ask for, or even cared about the above. It is fear mongering to support
a particular point of view (FUD) and it is unsupported by facts (HOG WASH).
I stand by both terms.
IETF mailing list