On 3/7/2013 10:32 AM, Sam Hartman wrote:
"David" == David Kessens <david(_dot_)kessens(_at_)nsn(_dot_)com> writes:
David> Can we please stop the hairsplitting ?
David> It is not the IESG's fault if you feel that the nomcom is
David> taking the IESG input as absolute software style
David> 'requirements' as opposed to often more lightly interpreted
David> 'job requirements' as desirable from the IESG's
David> perspective. Please take that message to the nomcom if you
David> wish.
I don't think there is hair splitting going on here; I think the issues
that are being raised are quite real and important.
I agree it's not hairsplitting and that it is vitally important.
Unfortunately, Sam, your model is simply wrong.
The IESG defines the job requirements. The Nomcom selects according to
those criteria.
I'm been in a number of Nomcom's that wished for some flexibility
concerning job requirements, but each of these Nomcoms was very clear
that it did not have a mandate to make changes in job criteria.
That is, the Nomcoms each viewed themselves as executing IESG policy,
rather than formulating policy.
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net