Re: DISCUSSION: rejecting candidates

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

Dave,

We disagree. I explicitly think the approving body needs the authority to
simply reject a candidate, as it does today. Otherwise, it is toothless.

Since we disagree, let's shut up and hear from other people.

  Brian

Dave Crocker wrote:
> 
> At 05:00 PM 4/16/2002 +0200, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> >I believe that checks and balances *require* that the confirming body has the
> >ability to reject candidates. I quite agree that its primary function is
> >to verify due process but this is pointless without teeth.
> 
> Please note that there is no question whether the review body does or
> should have real authority.  No question at all.
> 
> Worse, the difference between rejecting a decision process, versus
> rejecting the result of that process, might seem subtle.  Heck, maybe it
> really IS subtle.
> 
> The question is the target of that authority.
> 
> Let me suggest that the term "negotiation" highlights the problem.  The
> review body simply cannot reasonably be approving individuals.  And having
> nomcom submit the list of candidates a little earlier does not change this.
> 
>          The only role that is practical is for the review bodies to
>          review (and approve or reject) the nomcom selection process.
> 
> That's a validation, not negotiation.
> 
> d/
> 
> ----------
> Dave Crocker  <mailto:dcrocker@brandenburg.com>
> Brandenburg InternetWorking  <http://www.brandenburg.com>
> tel +1.408.246.8253;  fax +1.408.850.1850
>