Re: What I was trying to say in the plenary last week

[avri <avri@apocalypse.org>]

hi,

from my personal point of view,
i have a different take on Brian's issue.

while i think that publishing the names of willing nominees,
or perhaps of candidates is a good thing to discuss, i think
that the notion of empowering the approving bodies to
effectively reject candidates should also be explored.  in 
fact i think the topics are different and should each be 
weighed on its own merits.  i.e. publishing names should not 
necessarily be considered  as a mechanism for getting around 
a weakness in the approval system.

after serving in 4 nomcoms, i was surprised to learn that 
the approving bodies did not feel they had the right to reject.
in my year as chair, i felt that i was working at the 
pleasure of the ISOC board and that they had the right, and 
perhaps duty, to reject anything i, or the nomcom i chaired, 
had to say. i also felt that the IAB had the right and 
repsonsiblity to reject an IESG candidate they felt was 
wrong. perhaps this was naive since the RFC was quiet on 
this subject, but it is what i thought was the case and it 
governed my behavior.

it has been argued that approval body rejection is not 
possible for at least 2 reasons:
 1 if they reject there is not enough time to come up
    with another candidate
 2. if they reject the nomcom can put forward the same
    candidate again and implicitly threaten deadlock.

personally i think the first issue is less of a problem then 
has been suggested.  in almost all situations, the nomcoms i 
served on had other folks on the 'short list' who would also 
have done a fine job.  in most cases, as would have been the 
case should the chosen one have had withdrawn at the last 
minute, the nomcom could have presented another decent 
candidate in short order.  and in the worse case, a postion 
can remain unfilled while the issues are being dealt with; 
though of course this should be avoided if at all possible. 
discussion of how to avoid rejections involves the function 
of the liaision, including the idea of an ISOC liaison, 
which is another issue probably best discussed in another email.

the second issue seems to me more critical and might require 
a nomcom rule change that prohibits the nomcom from 
presenting a rejected candidate again during its term.  that 
is, once the approving body has considered and rejected a 
candidate, it should  be binding for that selection period. 
 this would enable the approving body to truly be more then 
a rubber stamp.  the possibility of this would also force 
the nomcom to be more attentive to the liaison roles to 
insure that this was as rare a case as possible.  of course 
it would also be possible for the approving body to not 
outright reject, but rather to send an inquiry to the 
nomcom, in its role as the vetting body, clarifying some 
aspect of the candidacy.  but, if in the end, it did reject 
the candidate,  that would be, by rule, the final word on 
that candidacy.

the main point i think it is important to consider is that a 
system of checks and balances on the nomcom requires that 
the approving bodies have a real ability to approve or to 
disapprove.

just an opinion for consideration

a.