On Mar 7, 2013, at 3:01 PM, Dave Crocker <dhc(_at_)dcrocker(_dot_)net> wrote:
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.
Dave, this isn't what RFC 3777 says…
RFC 3777 says that the IESG submits the IESG's desired criteria, that the
nomcom gets input from the community on what the criteria should be, and that
the nomcom decides (based on both inputs) what criteria the nomcom will use to
select candidates.
This is why I do support the nomcom asking the community for further input if
it is unclear what the requirements should be.
IMO, nomcoms don't do a very good job of asking the community about what the
criteria should be. The entire input-gathering process is focused on the
individual candidates, and the community can't really offer feedback on
candidates they don't know.
Based on your message and other things that have been said about this year's
process, I think the community has lost track of the nomcom's job in setting
the criteria. For years, I have been choosing to give the nomcom free-form
feedback on the criteria via e-mail or during interviews, and now I understand
why I've been getting blank stares or silence in return.
Margaret