Re: DISCUSSION: rejecting candidates

[John C Klensin <klensin@jck.com>]

--On Friday, 12 April, 2002 09:00 -0400 Donald Eastlake 3rd
<dee3@torque.pothole.com> wrote:

>...
> Seems to me it would be useful to point out that it is normal
> for all the IESG candidates to be confirmed by the old IAB
> before the new IAB candidates are sent to the ISOC BoT. At
> least all nomcoms I know about have done this because IESG
> positions are so much harder to fill and you might want to
> filch someone from the IAB for them. So until the new IESG is
> stable, you don't want to be pinned down for all the IAB
> slots. So, in reality, the confirmations are serialized.
>...

Donald,

If what we are trying to do is to get the Nomcom's results into
the hands of the confirming bodies earlier, so as to give them a
sensible amount of time to evaluate the slates and, if needed,
iterate with the Nomcom without causing a crisis, then it seems
to me that explicitly serializing things is just the wrong cure
to the problem you identify.  Instead, I would think that we
would want to:

(i) Give the Nomcom a deadline for having names to the
confirming bodies.

(ii) Encourage them to beat that schedule if possible and,

(iii) If they have to "flich someone" from the IAB to fill an
IESG position after pushback from the IAB (or vice versa after
pushback from the ISOC BoT -- I grant that is the less likely
case, but I don't see any reason to exclude it as a possibility,
which is the other reason to not serialize the two explicitly),
then it is a plain, ordinary, vacancy-filling situation, isn't
it?  And that should be, as has been pointed out, pretty easy
since memories will be fresh and the nomcom will already have
second choices in mind.

     john