Re: DISCUSSION: rejecting candidates

[Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>]

Harald and all,

Harald Alvestrand wrote:

> Thinking through this on a case-by-case basis - this particular case set is
> seen from the confirming body.
>
> Scenario 1:
> Nomcom makes a selection. The confirming body has information which, in its
> opinion, makes the candidate obviously unsuited for the job, and which it
> thinks that the nomcom cannot possibly have considered.

  This seems a bit cryptic and a reasonable scenario unless or until
the criterion for what constitutes "Unsuitable"...  Hence without
such criterion defined specifically, just about any reason could be given
to declare any candidate as "Unsuitable".

>
> Scenario 2:
> Nomcom makes a selection. The confirming body doesn't like the candidate
> much.

  This almost the same as your Scenario 1...

>
>
> Scenario 3:
> Nomcom makes a selection. The confirming body doesn't have a specific
> objection to the candidate, but would rather have someone else.

  Again depending on what the criterion are to justify such declaration,
this Scenario is very much like scenario 1 as well...

>
>
> I think we would want to make it possible for the confirming body to reject
> the nominee in scenario 1, but that it would be a constitutional crisis if
> it were to reject the nomination in scenarios 2 and 3.

  Why?  I don't see any reason why any self declared candidate
could not stand for election unless they were a convicted criminal,
or a known terrorist..  Hence I don't see a compelling need or
reason for a "Confirming Body" unless there is some specific
yet to be defined reason to exclude some potential self declared
candidates...

>
>
> The problem with writing that into the rules is, of course, that without
> discussion between Nomcom and the confirming body, there is no way either
> body can tell which scenario we're in.
>
>                      Harald
>
> --On onsdag, april 17, 2002 08:30:51 -0700 Dave Crocker
> <dcrocker@brandenburg.com> wrote:
>
> > At 10:01 AM 4/17/2002 +0200, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> >> We disagree. I explicitly think the approving body needs the authority to
> >> simply reject a candidate, as it does today. Otherwise, it is toothless.
> >
> > Brian, I have raised some specific points that you have not responded to
> > yet. Simply trading shots of i-am-right-you-are-wrong is not very helpful.
> >
> > 1.  How can the approving body do an evaluation that matches the depth
> > and care of nomcom?  It does not replicate the nomcom process.
> >
> > 2.  To the extent that the approving body can perform an equivalently
> > thorough analysis, then what is the point of having nomcom in the first
> > place, since it is redundant with the effort of the approving body.
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription
> manager: <http://lists.elistx.com/subscribe>

Regards,
--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 121k members/stakeholdes strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com
Contact Number:  972-244-3801 or 214-244-4827
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208