On Mar 17, 2008, at 9:14 AM, Stewart Bryant wrote:
Isn't one of the roles of the liaisons to ensure that due process is
followed to the extent required by the body they represent, and to
advanced notice when the choice of candidate is likely to be
unacceptable to their body?
Yes, and it's stated somewhat redundantly in S. 7 of RFC 3777,
but if there are issues with process the liaison should address
them first with the chair, and if to no avail, invoke dispute
If I were liaison and believed there were ANY process issues that
couldn't be resolved with the chair, I'd be reluctant to provide any
slate to my confirming body.
I.e., as IAB liaison this year I had no problem providing the
NomCom's IESG slate to the IAB for confirmation. This should
serve as a testament that I believe process was followed and
properly executed by the NomCom. However, this is orthogonal
of the IAB's consideration of that slate as confirming body, which
as an insider there I can assure you is something they take far
more seriously than I'd ever previously thought, which I believe
to be a good thing.
I believe the crux of the issue here is indeed what the role of the
confirming body is. IMO, the current model ensures the NomCom
feels second-guessed, which I assure you weighs heavy on
NomCom members after an extraordinary amount of work. And
the confirming bodies must take the confirmation process
seriously, and pushback from the NomCom seems unreasonable.
I've seen this from all perspectives, and I'm not sure where the
right balance is. The dispute resolution this year is a symptom
of a larger issue, IMO.
Beyond that, my personal opinion is that both the NomCom and
the IAB were acting in good faith this year, and it's unfortunate
that the IETF NomCom framework is clouding the product of that
work. It is clear that it needs to be readdressed.
IETF mailing list