On 3/16/13 3:05 PM, Fred Baker (fred) wrote:
My understanding, at least in the case of the TSV AD in this event, is that
- the IESG proposed qualifications they thought applied
- the nomcom may or may not have adjusted them, looked at the pool of
candidates that were willing to serve, and then picked the one they thought was
best qualified among those available
- the confirming body (in this case the IAB) then rejected the candidate.
Officially, you can't know any such thing. There are two possibilities:
1. The NomCom left the slot empty and the IAB said "OK".
2. The NomCom filled the slot and the IAB said "No".
And of course, there could have been multiple attempts of each of the
above, in any order, including the possibility that the NomCom filled
the slot, the IAB said, "No, we say that the qualifications that you
used were wrong and reject your proposal" and the NomCom said, "Bite us.
These are the qualifications. That's who you get or the slot remains
empty." So I don't think you can necessarily conclude that the IAB has
final authority over the decision.
Now, you could have read the patterns of black or white smoke emitting
from the NomCom or analyzed previous IAB behavior or read tea leaves and
surmised what might have happened, but *unless someone on the NomCom or
the IAB broke confidentiality*, you don't know which one of these things
happened. I would presume that if there was a true stalemate, the
ensuing constitutional crisis would have been made public, but with the
information we know I don't think you can conclude anything.
pr
--
Pete Resnick<http://www.qualcomm.com/~presnick/>
Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. - +1 (858)651-4478