On 3/7/2013 12:52 PM, Ted Hardie wrote:
I agree that the current language permits the current operational model, because
it leaves it up to the NomCom to determine how to derive IETF
community consensus;
it can believe the IESG is right, as it does now.
But it is not required to do so by my reading of RFC 3777. And I
don't event think
that's the default. That is actually pretty much spelled out in section 12:
12. The nominating committee selects candidates based on its
understanding of the IETF community's consensus of the
qualifications required to fill the open positions.
You seem to have misunderstood the Nomcom operational model that I
described: The Nomcoms that I've been on recently felt that the IESG's
job descriptions were rigid requirements; the Nomcom's did not believe
that the Nomcom was the ultimate arbitrator.
As for the language in #12, which assigns ultimate authority to the
community, I'll claim that it has no practical utility, absent an
explicit effort to circulate specific job descriptions to the community
and then seek explicit IETF consensus for it; this hasn't been done in
20 years...
I understand the legal readings you and Sam H. are offering, but they
don't match the lack of freedom felt by the Nomcoms I've been on.
Given Sam W's comments, at the least we have a degree of ambiguity in
the interpretation across different Nomcoms. Since this is a strategic
issue, it's too important to leave that ambiguous, IMO.
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net