-- On March 15, 2013 1:23:42 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) --
On 3/15/2013 12:47 PM, James Galvin wrote:
> The choice of the phrase "understanding of the IETF community's
> consensus" is deliberately ambiguous.
As I suggested, the problem isn't just ambiguity. This text contains
two fundamental errors. The first is that there is an IETF community
consensus on the relevant job criteria. The second is that a Nomcom
knows it or can find it out.
One can certainly imagine a separate process -- prior to, and
independent of -- Nomcom, for getting the community to standardize
the job requirements/criteria. I doubt such an effort would be
productive.
What you're saying is that what I see as a feature you see as a bug.
Perhaps we do need something mostly stable but I agree with your
assertion that an effort to standardize that would be at least
challenging if unlikely to be productive.
The point of the original text (and as editor of 3777 I do know what
the intent was even if we disagree on the expression) was to allow the
NOMCOM to adjust to the changing needs of the community at will. I
disagree with you that the NOMCOM is unlikely to be able to gather
community consensus and act on it.
This community can be quite deliberate about its opinions and rather
vociferant about them too. If the community really believed there was
an issue that the NOMCOM needed to address I completely believe the
NOMCOM would know it and thus would act on it. If the NOMCOM is not
getting that input then it must be the case that the NOMCOM is doing an
okay job.
On the other hand, if a NOMCOM makes an unpopular decision and only
finds out after the fact, then that means the next NOMCOM (and maybe
the next) has to fix it. That's how the process was supposed to work.
I really don't see a need to change this text. I confess I have lost
track of exactly what problem we are trying to solve here.
Jari proposed a consensus, which aligns with what is documented in my
opinion. If you want to change the text to be more in line with Jari's
words that's fine with me. However, I believe that your words are
overly prescriptive.
An important principle in 3777 is to give the NOMCOM the flexibility it
needs to do what it needs to do when it needs to be done, but no less
flexibility than it needs. I see your text as reducing that
flexibility by stating how the NOMCOM "understands the community
consensus".
Do other folks really believe we need (or want) to do that?
Jim
Revised draft text:
2. The nominating committee determines the criteria for the
job, synthesizing the desires expressed by the IAB, IESG
or
IAOC (as appropriate), desires express by the community,
and
the nominating committee's own assessment; it informs the
community and candidates of these determined criteria; it
advises each confirming body of its respective candidates;
the nominating committee shall provide the confirming body
with supporting materials that cover its selections,
including the final version of criteria that the
nominating
committee used when making its selections.
Hums and further comments are eagerly sought...