Dave Crocker <dhc(_at_)dcrocker(_dot_)net> 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;
I see several problems with this text:
1) It wanders from the current clear distinction between "desired
expertise", determined by the body where the nominee will serve,
and "IETF community's consensus of the qualifications required",
determined by waving the right magic wand. ;^)
These are separable, and deserve to be distinguished from each other.
2) The confirming body _does_ have a role here, which they frequently
take seriously. IMHO, the confirming body has much better experience
at determining "community consensus" than the NomCom -- but at the
very least, it's a bad idea for them to be surprised by any change
in the "desired expertise" at the point where names are presented
to them. Thus:
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;
strikes me as too little, too late: the confirming body should learn
of any relaxing (least of all changes!) to the "desired expertise"
early in the process, and IMHO, should comment on or accept these
changes.
these requirements shall be made public after nominees are
confirmed.
This seems too vague. I'd suggest we consider listing actual
"requirements" in a formal report posted to <ietf-announce>.
(YMMV...)
--
John Leslie <john(_at_)jlc(_dot_)net>