On 3/8/2013 3:57 PM, Jari Arkko wrote:
FWIW, I do believe that noncoms may decide for themselves what the
final requirements are for specific positions. This is true in this
case as well. The IESG has a role to send the starting point for
these requirements, the desired expertise. (But it is possible that
the nomcom does not see a need to change what the input said, which
may help explain what Dave has seen.)
No. I've been quite explicit about the point I was making and there
seems to be a pattern in this thread of different people re-interpreting
it to mean something else.
Of the 4 nomcoms I've been on, more than one felt that the criteria
should be revised.
NONE OF THEM BELIEVED THEY HAD THE AUTHORITY.
"Not having the authority" is fundamentally different from "not seeing a
need to change".
From one Nomcom to the next, the sense of authority and obligation for
a Nomcom should be consistent. What a Nomcom does with that will (and
probably should) vary enormously, of course, but they should all work
from a common understanding of their charter.
Also, while the nomcom decides the requirements for
specific positions,
Again: that's nice, simple, clear language, but it does not reflect
what some Nomcoms have believed was their charter.
We should revise the language to make authorities and responsibilities
far more clear.
As I explained in an earlier posting, I see a reasonable reading of the
current text as /not/ assigning the authority to the Nomcom. It's fine
that other read it differently, but that's not the point.
It should require really creative mis-reading to get an interpretation
that differs from everyone else.
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net