-- On March 13, 2013 10:45:11 AM -0800 Melinda Shore
<melinda(_dot_)shore(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com> wrote regarding Re: Consensus on the
responsibility for qualifications? (Was: Re: Nomcom is responsible for
IESG qualifications) --
On 3/13/2013 10:27 AM, Dave Crocker wrote:
> 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 think we need to acknowledge that the confirming body (IAB)
effectively has veto power over those criteria/requirements,
since it can reject candidates who were selected by evaluation
against those criteria.
I do not acknowledge this.
Currently, RFC 3777 is clear that the criteria/requirements are set by
the NOMCOM. Certainly we can discuss this and choose to change it
because we believe the process needs to evolve but that would be a
fundamental shift in how the process was designed to work.
The fundamental principle on which RFC 3777 is based is that all
responsibility for the selection of the leadership and how that
leadership is comprised belongs to the community. The community
selects a set of representatives, the NOMCOM, to execute on that
responsibility.
This means the NOMCOM sets the criteria/requirements.
To do this any other way, e.g., allowing the confirming body or the
body with openings to be filled to set the criteria/requirements, risks
the leadership itself becoming a self-selecting and perpetual set of
candidates.
Those who were around when the NOMCOM process was first created will
remember that one of the primary motivations for its creation was
expressly to get the IETF out of precisely that situation.
It seems to me that the real question here is what is the role of the
confirming body? Should its role be biased towards a review (however
deep) of the work of the NOMCOM or should its role be biased towards
ensuring the NOMCOM has followed the process in selecting its slate of
candidates?
Jim