Re: DISCUSSION: rejecting candidates

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

Ted's suggestion, I think, was to start one whole IETF sooner, i.e. pick the NomCom
before the July/August meeting. Just moving up the end date alone doesn't work.
Avoiding the December/January holiday season would certainly help, but we'd
also have to avoid the July/August holiday season.

However I have to register a continuing disagreement with Donald. From the
viewpoint of the approving bodies (and I've served on both of them), there
simply isn't enough time to go through an orderly candidate rejection
process, and there is a clear sense that rejecting a candidate would be
cataclysmic. If we don't fix this, the process doesn't actually have all
the checks and balances we think it does.

    Brian

Thomas Narten wrote:
> 
> > While it all depends on the nomcom members and primarily on the chair,
> > giving the nomcom more calendar time for its work will not always
> > translate into it making decisions early.
> 
> I agree. If you want to add some meaningful timetable wording to the
> document...
> 
> The current wording is:
> 
>       The annual selection and confirmation process is expected to be
>       completed one month prior to the friday of the week before the
>       First IETF.  It is expected to begin 4 months prior to the Friday
>       of the week before the First IETF.
> 
> I think it would me more useful to say
> 
> 1) the nomcom forwards its slate of candidates to the confirming body
>    no later than (say) 6 weeks prior to the First IETF meeting. I.e.,
>    allow sufficient time for the confirming body to think and maybe
>    question.
> 
> 2) The most important place for interacting with the community is the
>    prior, i.e., Fall, IETF. To achieve this, add wording something to
>    the effect: The nomcom should be fully constituted no later than
>    one month prior the Fall IETF and should have made sufficient
>    progress in its work so that it can use the Fall IETF to interview
>    the community (i.e., IESG, IAB) as well as specific candidates for
>    the open positions.
> 
> I think it important to emphasize the point about "interviewing
> specific candidates", in the sense that interviewing candidates
> implies that the nomcom has actually started building enough of a
> short list to identify some people it actually wants to meet with
> face-to-face.
> 
> Now, this may seem like its really moving up the target date. But
> realistically, the December time frame where the nomcom needs to do
> the most work, is really problematic due to holidays. This is both for
> the nomcom members and the community (and candidates) when seeking
> input/feedback.
> 
> Another possible proposal: it might be useful to move the timing of
> the nomcom to either Summer or Fall, i.e., so that the nomcom isn't
> doing its work time over the December holidays.
> 
> Thomas
>