[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Confirming vs. second-guessing

2008-03-17 03:56:57
Agreeing with Brian's dislike of, it was drafted, 
as far as I know, before RFC 3777 was published.  RFC 3777 defines the 
process, with the consensus of the IETF community as a whole.  I suggest 
that the IAB at least review its requirements document within the process 
defined by RFC 3777.  I think it would be more appropriate and more in 
keeping with RFC 3777 for the IAB to publish minimal or no a priori 
requirements, leaving to the Nomcom the responsibility for the provision 
of adequate documentation in support of its nominaions.  As Brian writes, 
the IAB can ask for specific additional information in those cases where 
it finds that information is necessary to complete its due diligence.

- Ralph

On Mon, 17 Mar 2008, Brian E Carpenter wrote:

On 2008-03-17 14:16, Ralph Droms wrote:

On Sun, 16 Mar 2008, Michael StJohns wrote:
Put another way, the Nomcom is a search committee, but the hiring
authority resides in the confirming bodies.

Mike - I fundamentally and strongly disagree.  In my opinoin, the Nomcom
is the hiring committee; the confirming body is the oversight and sanity
check body.  The Nomcom is selected from the IETF as a whole to select the
management for the IETF, who then serve at the pleasure of the IETF as a
whole.  The confirming bodies do not form a hierarchical management or
hiring organization; rather, they perform a final check and review of the

To put it very slightly otherwise, the nomcom is supposed to represent
the whole community in the process of appointing people - maybe it would
be better named as the "appointments committee". The confirming bodies
are supposed to provide a check that due process has been followed and
that the proposed appointees are suitable, but they are clearly doing
that as guardians of the process.

I believe that it's appropriate for the confirming bodies to ask for
additional information if they have reason to doubt that due proces
has been followed or that some of the proposed appointees are suitable.
I agree that they are inside the confidentiality boundary, too, and
this should be made clear to all concerned. What I don't like about
is that the materials are requested a priori, as if *every* NomCom
choice is suspect. I think these are questions that should only be
asked if the confirming body has specific reason to query a choice.
(With one exception: it is quite reasonable to request a resume or CV
a priori.)


IETF mailing list