Dave, all,
We talked about this in the Monday plenary. Obviously people have read or
understood the situation in different ways. But that should not stop us from
reaching a common understanding of the situation now that we realised we had
read it differently. You indicated that you thought you saw consensus emerge on
the list about the way that qualifications are determined. I am now attempting
to see if the list believes this is how it should work:
The bodies (IESG, IAB, …) themselves provide desirable qualifications to the
nominating committee. The nominating committee may, however, itself determine
what the final requirements are for specific positions. As a part of this
effort, the nominating committee needs to evaluate the qualifications that it
got in critical light, as well as to call for input from the community on the
qualifications.
However, the body for which persons are being searched is still responsible on
how the work is organised. For instance, the IESG determines what areas there
are, and therefore, what and how many area directors are needed.
(And again, this mail is just about a process clarification, not something that
should affect current nomcom process, this has nothing to do with selecting
specific persons this year, etc.)
Jari