Re: DISCUSSION: rejecting candidates

[John C Klensin <john+nomcom@jck.com>]

--On Thursday, 18 April, 2002 20:39 +0200 Harald Alvestrand
<harald@alvestrand.no> 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.
> 
> Scenario 2:
> Nomcom makes a selection. The confirming body doesn't like the
> candidate much.
> 
> Scenario 3:
> Nomcom makes a selection. The confirming body doesn't have a
> specific objection to the candidate, but would rather have
> someone else.
> 
> 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.

Harald, there is another case, which I think we should classify
as part of scenario 1, but might fall into one of the others as
you characterize them.  And I think this is an area that Dave
belives the confirming bodies should not be permitted to tamper
with.  I have a bias about the right answer, but it doesn't
count; that the community explicitly address the question and
decide does.

The scenario: Nomcom makes a selection.  The confirming body
considers it and decides that, while the candidate would be fine
if viewed in isolation, there are compelling reasons why the
appointment is unsuitable and, to quote your scenario 1, "which
it thinks that the nomcom cannot possibly have considered".

Some examples: 

(i) the candidate is ok, and would be an ok match with the
prospective co-AD on the IESG, but is involved in a blood feud
with two other IESG members, one of whom is the IETF Chair.

(ii) the candidate is ok, but the particular area into which he
or she is being inserted contains a range of WG interest areas,
and the combination of that candidate and the continuing AD(s)
would leave no effective technical coverage for a number of
those WGs.

The first of these is more relevant to the IESG, but may have
some IAB analogies.   The second is also more relevant to the
IESG, but, for the IAB, is related to the "balance" thread that
has been started earlier.
 
      john