Dave,
What you say is reasonable, but may not be practically applicable.
For example, with folks like yourself who know a great deal about the
inner
workings of IESG, IAB, etc. - as well as knowing many (if not most) of the
people who
might reasonably be expected to show up as nominees - it is quite possible to
argue
the merit of a particular nomination choice independent of the specific
requirements
handed to the NomCom.
Does that mean that the result would be that the NomCom would tell the
IAB,
IESG, etc. that they decided to "change" the requirements? I think not.
On the other hand, because of the selection process we use for the
NomCom,
it would be quite possible to end up with a NomCom that has nobody, among the
voting
members, that has a degree of understanding similar to your own. In that case,
giving
anyone on such a NomCom the impression that they have any responsibility to
review
and perhaps alter the requirements given to them would possibly be a serious
error.
One of the factors that can lead to different interpretations of the
guidelines
RFC(s) for NomComs is the amount of experience the members collectively bring
to the
table. In a very real way, the potential for different interpretations that
exists right
now is a feature - in this respect - rather than a bug.
With the current possibility for interpretation, an experienced NomCom
can
do better, while a less experienced NomCom can do the best they can with what
they
are given, and can get on their own - without feeling compelled to try to step
outside of
the limits of their experience.
I know that this may grate on some people's sense of how things should
be
done. In no small part, this is likely because of a concern that some folks
may take
advantage of such loop-holes to push forward an agenda of their own.
I think that concern is a bogey man, given the fact that the current
NomCom
selection process tends to select sincere and conscientious people and that
there are a
host of balances and correction points in the NomCom process.
--
Eric
-----Original Message-----
From: ietf-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
[mailto:ietf-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org] On Behalf Of Dave Crocker
Sent: Friday, March 08, 2013 10:11 PM
To: Jari Arkko
Cc: ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
Subject: Re: Nomcom is responsible for IESG qualifications
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