Re: DISCUSSION: rejecting candidates

[Marshall Rose <mrose+internet.ietf.nomcom@dbc.mtview.ca.us>]

> Maybe something specific would illustrate the point you're making to
> some of who do not Get It.

i guess my perspective is that "i don't need to get it".

apologies in advance for repeating part of a message i sent three weeks ago:

>     some have argued that when the confirming body rejects a candidate,
>     then this should be treated as the final say on the matter. this
>     perspective isn't consistent with the philosophy of checks and
>     balances. if the confirming body rejects someone, the nomcom should
>     be free to re-think their choice, and, if they feel strongly about
>     it, then to submit the name again. if this leads to a deadlock, then
>     the position doesn't get filled -- and frankly, i think that's just
>     fine. if both sides feel so strongly on the issue that they can't
>     agree, then the position should go unfilled until they can
>     agree. and if that means the position goes unfilled for a year, i
>     applaud them both for acting on the strength of their
>     convictions. (of course, we all know that it's unlikely to go on for
>     a year. maybe a month or two. and if it is an entire year, that's
>     okay, the iesg and iab have operated at less than full strength
>     before.)

frankly, i don't want to get into why the confirming body feels they have to say no. the process doesn't require that. all that's required is that both the nomcom and confirming body ultimately agree on a candidate.

both groups should act on their informed beliefs, and the fact that both groups may use different processes/inputs is a good thing...

/mtr