-- On March 13, 2013 2:27:45 PM -0400 Dave Crocker <dhc(_at_)dcrocker(_dot_)net>
wrote regarding Re: Consensus on the responsibility for qualifications?
(Was: Re: Nomcom is responsible for IESG qualifications) --
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.
I agree with this.
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?
While I support your goal of wanting to clarify the language, I think
your suggestion moves too far away from the intent of the original text.
The choice of the phrase "understanding of the IETF community's
consensus" is deliberately ambiguous. The NOMCOM really is the
"end-of-the-road" in the system that identifies our leadership. One
overall principle in 3777 is that the NOMCOM is the final authority.
It has a responsibility to do what it needs to do to get its job done,
as long as that is not inconsistent with what is documented.
In my opinion, flexibility is important here. We have, over time, made
the process less flexible where we were concerned that the process was
overreaching, but there is no example of that in this case.
The NOMCOM needs to be able to figure out for itself what that phrase
means and how to execute on it. I do not think we should be
prescriptive about how to do this. I'm concerned that what you're
proposing is overly prescriptive. I prefer the original text.
Jim