Re: DISCUSSION: publish list of nominees?

[Geoff Huston <gih@telstra.net>]

At 4/11/2002 04:10 AM, Theodore Tso wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 05, 2002 at 03:39:47PM +0200, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> > b) we will clarify the role of the confirming bodies (and their
> >    liaisons) in verifying that due process has been followed by NomCom.
>
> One of the things which really should be clarified here is how input
> is appropriate to be shared with the confirming bodies.
>
> I'm still not comfortable with a process where the definition of "Due
> Process" seems to be the confirming body asking a series of questions
> of the form "Did you ask Foo?", "Did you solicit the input of Bar?",
> etc.  (I've been told that this is quite common, and has happened in
> multiple nomcom's.)

Drawing on my experience on both sides of the role (member of Nomcom  and 
member of the confirming body, some of the reasons why some Nomcoms receive 
such a level of detailed query is the manner in which the Nomcom reports to 
the confirming body.

The confirming body may have been expecting a description of how the Nomcom 
arrived at its slate of nominees in terms of the qualifications they were 
seeking and the attributes of the nominees which the Nomcom felt 
represented a superior choice for the
benefit of the IETF. Some Nomcoms have elected to provide a list of names, 
others have added to this list of names a form of CV. In both cases there 
is the expectation that the confirming body will fill in the blanks. I 
suspect that in such cases the Nomcom gets to be on the receiving end of a 
rigorous set of rounds of detailed questions about the procedures used to 
reach particular conclusions, and rightly so. My experience has tended to 
indicate that the more the Nomcom is able to illustrate its thinking and 
processes used to reach conclusions in its report to the confirming bodies, 
the easier the confirming body's task in terms of ensuring, to their level 
of confidence, that confirmation of the slate is the responsible action.

   Geoff