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.
Agreed.
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.
I'm fine with that.
jari
Comments?
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net