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

[Brian E Carpenter <brian@hursley.ibm.com>]

Jim,

I would be in favour of adjusting the rules such that the confirming body can
feel able to reject a candidate without fear of it causing a constitutional
crisis. 

John Klensin has hinted at some of the complexities. However, it's clear that
in practice, the IAB can run with one or two seats vacant - so it isn't a
disaster if IAB confirmation is delayed for one or two people. Unfortunately
that really isn't true of the IESG - empty IESG seats would be a real
problem, so we might just have to add more time in the process to allow
for an extra candidate approval cycle.

   Brian

James M Galvin wrote:
> 
> 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>
>