[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Confirming vs. second-guessing

2008-03-17 08:38:10
At 20:17 16-03-2008, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
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.

The nominating committee selects candidates which, in their opinion, 
fits the requirements they have been given and which they believe 
will be able to contribute in such as way as to improve the 
body.  The confirming body are there to determine whether the 
requirements are met.  They may have to understand the rationale for 
the selection if they find it inappropriate.

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

There is an expectation that the information provided to the 
nominating committee is confidential.  The confirming body needs some 
information to determine whether the candidate fits the stated requirements.
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.)

That's the expectations of the IAB in support of a nomination.  It is 
reasonable for the nomination committee to provide  a brief resume to 
the confirming body.  Turning the expectations of the confirming body 
into preconditions for the nominating committee's selection may be 
perceived as undermining the role of the nominating committee.


IETF mailing list