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

[James M Galvin <galvin+ietf-nomcom@eListX.com>]

SPEAKING AS EDITOR:

Avri has made the suggestion that we reinforce the fact that a
confirming body can so "no" to one or more candidates in a slate by
preventing the NOMCOM from resubmitting a rejected candidate during that
NOMCOM's term.  You can read her argument in favor of this below.

Please reply to this message or at least use the subject line of this
message in your reply when responding to the suggestion.

Thanks,

Jim





On Fri, 29 Mar 2002, avri wrote:

    Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2002 12:15:45 +0100
    From: avri <avri@apocalypse.org>
    To: ietf-nomcom <ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com>
    Subject: Re: What I was trying to say in the plenary last week

    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.


    ----------------------------------------------------------------
    To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription
    manager: <http://lists.elistx.com/subscribe>