Re: SUMMARY: serving on both IAB and IESG concurrently

[Robert Elz <kre@munnari.OZ.AU>]

    Date:        Mon, 01 Apr 2002 09:11:40 -0500
    From:        John C Klensin <john+nomcom@jck.com>
    Message-ID:  <46549809.1017652300@localhost>

  | ultimately, if a situation arose in which the nomcom saw a need
  | to put the same person on both the IAB and IESG, and did so with
  | full understanding of the workload and the complications for,
  | e.g., appeals handling, and there were someone who was willing
[...]

I have no problem with that analysis, but I thought (guessed may
be more the operative term) that the problem intended to be solved
wasn't this one exactly (though as written it would have impact there
as well), but the much more common case (in that there are reported
instances of it, and it will happen again, unlike the above, which has
close to 0 chance of ever occurring) where someone is being moved from
one body to the other.

Movements in both directions have happened - but the date of end of service
in one body and start in the other do not necessarily coincide.  If the
one that ends ends before the other starts, or coincidental with it,
then there's no possible problem.  But where one starts a week (which
is the usual time frame) before the other ends, what happens then.   No
nomcom ever appointed the person to both bodies, they just ended up there for
that (short) period (usually the nomcom causing the change won't even know
that it will happen, as the precise date of change tends to be decided by the
relevant body very very late in the process)

My impression (which could be entirely wrong) was that the intent was to
specify what should happen in that circumstance.

I have no problem with just doing nothing - I've never seen an instance
where any actual problem was caused by this, but I also wouldn't like to
see the issue swept away based upon a mistaken (perhaps) understanding of
what was intended to be achieved.   Perhaps even wording could be crafted
which would explicitly allow a nomcom to appoint someone to multiple bodies,
if they do that expressly, but not allow it to happen by accident.

Once again however, we are being asked to decide on an issue given only
generalities.  No other working group would work this way - decide the
principle first, and then be faced with having to invent mechanism to
make it happen is 100% the wrong way to achieve good results (even if it
sometimes seems to be the expedient way).  What is needed (for each and every
of the open issues being discussed) is a concrete proposal for exactly what
would be done, and how, which can then be debated (and adjusted as required).
None of this "is X a good idea", after which if we get an apparent "yes"
answer, "here is a proposal that achieves X" where the only response would be
to adjust the proposal, not to reject it, as we have already decided to do X.

kre