Re: DISCUSSION: rejecting candidates

[Dave Crocker <dcrocker@brandenburg.com>]

At 12:34 PM 4/17/2002 -0400, Thomas Narten wrote:
> I think the issue is not whether the confirming body can reject a
> candidate, its on what grounds.

The current rules do allow the confirming body to reject individual 
candidates.  We could have a larger debate about that rule and whether it 
should be changed.  However Thomas' phrasing of the issue is more 
practical.  It let's us focus on formulating focused guidance to the 
confirming bodies, within the current rules.

I support Thomas' suggestion we consider:

        What are the grounds on which a confirming body may reject a 
candidate?



At 01:39 PM 4/17/2002 -0400, Joel M. Halpern wrote:
> ...  If they felt that the IESG needed to be shaken up, or the IAB needed 
> to all share some political / economic agenda, or otherwise choose for 
> additional reasons, the nomcom members are clearly capable of doing so 
> while complying with the process.  In fact, I would not want a set of 
> rules that made this impossible.

Nor would I.  Each nomcom probably has one or more members who are, shall 
we say, not very constructive.  (And, no, of course the one I was just on 
had no such person...)

Hence it is certain that one of these days the entire nomcom be composed of 
rogue members.  Hence the confirming bodies must retain the ability for 
"strategic" rejection of a nomcom's recommendations.

If the confirming body chooses to make a rejection because they disagree 
with a nomcom's "agenda", then there will be a fundamental 
conflict.  Nomcoms do not engage in those agendas lightly.  So in such 
situations, the effect will be massive.  No minor changes to the current 
process will fix that.  Not more time in the process, not better rules.

The reality is that the conflict management mechanism that Marshall 
described is all that can be available.

A tactical change to the nomcom process, that might help avoid major 
conflicts between a nomcom and the confirming body, is for the nomcom to 
float a list of candidates by the confirming body PRIOR to formulating the 
final set of nominations.

For example:

        The nomcom could circulate its short list of candidates for each
        position -- that is, the set of candidates being considered for
        the final round of nomcom deliberations -- to the confirming body,
        requesting the confirming body for any comments it might have about
        the candidates.

The nomcom could then factor that feedback into its final 
deliberations.  The danger is that this would effectively move the final 
portion of the selection process to the confirming body.

        We need to find a way for resolution (or avoidance) of major 
disputes between
        a nomcom and the confirming body to happen BEFORE the end of the 
process.

        By the end of the process, nomcom participants have expended an 
enormous
        amount of effort, energy and emotion.  By the end of the process, 
nomcom
        participants are drained.

        It is quite simply unreasonable to reward such volunteer efforts 
with a
        confirming body response that pretends that the confirming body's 
intuitive
        sense about candidates is better than the nomcom's evaluation after a
        protracted efforts.

To the extent that the confirming body DOES have a better sense of the 
choices than the nomcom, then we really are wasting time and resources by 
bothering to have a nomcom.



At 08:39 PM 4/18/2002 +0200, Harald Alvestrand wrote:
> Thinking through this on a case-by-case basis - this particular case set 
> is seen from the confirming body.

Trying to develop a case analylsis set is a good idea.  This initial list 
of three is useful for distinguishing that some confirming body reasons are 
probably inappropriate whereas others are obviously essential.  This 
encourages requiring the confirming body to be very clear about its reasons.

Joel's example of disagreement with nomcom "agenda" shows that the range of 
confirming body reasons for objecting can be more varied than the short 
list of three that Harald provided.



At 07:23 PM 4/17/2002 -0400, Rob Austein wrote:
> > 1.  How can the approving body do an evaluation that matches the depth and
> > care of nomcom?  It does not replicate the nomcom process.
>
> The confirming body probably can't.  It may, however, feel that it
> must try, if the available alternatives to doing so look bad enough.

No doubt a confirming body might wish to enjoy parental rights over nomcom 
but it does not have them.  The difference between final approval rights, 
versus parental rights is not small or whimsical.  The former is a peer 
process to ensure a check and balance, while the latter presumes immaturity 
in the nomcom and inherent superiority of insight by the confirming body.

The fact that a confirming body might want to do the impossible, and 
pretend that it can replicate the depth and thoroughness of the nomcom 
process, is exactly the sort of problem that needs to be fixed.  It is a 
real and current problem.

An impractical goal is not made practical by the good intentions of 
misguided confirming body members.  We need to look at these activities 
with a careful eye towards practicality.

d/

----------
Dave Crocker  <mailto:dcrocker@brandenburg.com>
Brandenburg InternetWorking  <http://www.brandenburg.com>
tel +1.408.246.8253;  fax +1.408.850.1850