Dave Crocker <dhc(_at_)dcrocker(_dot_)net> wrote:
...
On 3/13/2013 9:07 PM, John Leslie wrote:
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. ;^)
Harumph! It doesn't wander. It moves with dedicated purpose...
;^)
What text you are proposing as an alternative?
I'll come back to that...
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"
see above.
There's a lot of "above". Which in particular?
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>.
Again, there is a range range of important procedural detail that
the existing does not provide. I'm in the camp that thinks that's
appropriate. We haven't had a problem with the lack of formal
specification for those details. Let's not fix something that's
been working well.
But it hasn't been working well! You have said yourself that some
prior NomComs have felt prevented from changing anything of the
"desired expertise".
Revised draft text:
2. The nominating committee determines the criteria for the
job, synthesizing the desires expressed by the IAB, IESG or
^^^^^^^
should be "desired expertise"
IAOC (as appropriate), desires express by the community, and
^^^^^^^
should be "qualifications required"
the nominating committee's own assessment; it informs the
community and candidates of these determined criteria;
"Informing the community" is technically sufficient; but I still
believe that the NomCom being chosen randomly is unlikely to have
much expertise in judging community consensus: the confirming bodies
are much more likely to have that expertise, and the confirming
bodies may disagree with the NomCom's judgment of these criteria.
Some formal consultation with the confirming bodies before publishing
the criteria to the full community is likely to avoid a rash of
troubles...
Regardless of the text here, somebody who disagrees with the
NomCom's judgment of consensus on these criteria will find a way
to appeal. :^(
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.
There is a whole lot which needs to happen after publication of
criteria and before informing confirming bodies of nominations.
At the very least, there should be a paragraph break here...
--
John Leslie <john(_at_)jlc(_dot_)net>>