ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Consensus on the responsibility for qualifications? (Was: Re: Nomcom is responsible for IESG qualifications)

2013-03-13 13:29:01

On 3/13/2013 1:49 PM, Jari Arkko wrote:
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.

Jari.

Thanks for sending this.

I think you've correctly described the dominant interpretation that developed in the discussion.

By way of testing whether I understand your text, here is a re-coding, meant to be simplistic and procedural:

1. The body (and/or the controlling documents for the body) defines its slots (positions). Nomcom fills the slots.

2. The body offers its view of the requirements for these positions, but these are merely advisory to the work of Nomcom

   3. The community comments on the requirements for positions.

4. Nomcom makes its own decision about the criteria it will use for selecting nominees; as such, it really is defining the /actual/ requirements for positions.


The task I think I agreed to, on Monday, was to formulate language changes to RFC 3777, to make this more clear.

Herewith:

   7. Unless otherwise specified, the advice and consent model is used
...
      2. The nominating committee selects candidates based on its
         understanding of the IETF community's consensus of the
         qualifications required and advises each confirming body of its
         respective candidates.

In practical terms, Nomcom is not in a position to conduct an actual (formal) community-wide consensus process. It can solicit comments and it can gauge those comments. But to characterize this sequence as an "understanding of the IETF community's consensus" is unrealistic and counterproductive, in my view.

So I suggest:

      2. The nominating committee selects candidates based on its
         determination of the requirements for the job, synthesized
         from the desires expressed by the IAB, IESG or IAOC (as
         appropriate), desires express by the community, and from the
         nominating committee's own assessment; it then advises each
         confirming body of its respective candidates; the nominating
         committee shall provide supporting materials that cover its
         selections, including the final version of requirements that
         the nominating committee used when making its selections;
         these requirements shall be made public after nominees are
         confirmed.


Comments?

d/
--
 Dave Crocker
 Brandenburg InternetWorking
 bbiw.net

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>