At 02:57 PM 3/13/2013, Scott Brim wrote:
On 03/13/13 14:51, Michael StJohns allegedly wrote:
At 02:27 PM 3/13/2013, Dave Crocker wrote:
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/
Can the nomcom waive or otherwise ignore "objective" criteria such as "must
have been a working group chair"?
The confirming body still has control.
I think so too. Which then suggests that the requirements should be provided
far in advance of the nominations, rather in conjunction with the nominations.
I think that surprising the confirming body with the requirements at the last
moment could tend to lead to further disruptions in the process.
Mike