Re: DISCUSSION: rejecting candidates

[Robert Elz <kre@munnari.OZ.AU>]

    Date:        Wed, 24 Apr 2002 16:58:03 -0400
    From:        Eric Gray <eric.gray@sandburst.com>
    Message-ID:  <3CC71C5B.7060704@sandburst.com>

  |     Amazing the number of familiar voices in this discussion.

Not really, there are only a comparatively small number of people who
care much about how the IETF is run in the abstract.

  |     If you truly have a group of loonies - or just people who don't
  | know any better

The latter is far more likely really - the IETF is full of people (most
likely including me) who don't have any real idea what is going on, but
believe that they do (in all fields).   The danger in the nomcom is when
there's no-one outside that (large) group selected, however well meaning,
the selections they make simply aren't necessarily going to achieve something
workable.  One might hope that the liaisons might act to prevent that early
in the process, but unless we spell out the liaison role more clearly, this
isn't at all certain.

That is, it wouldn't be unreasonable for the past chair to feel (justifiably)
that their main function was the past year, and the role this time is just
to answer questions about what happened last time.   The IAB/IESG liaisons
tend to be whoever on those bodies feels they have time available, and so
can be one or the less experienced members - as there's currently no guidance
as to what the liaisons should do the bodies appointing them have no real
guidance as to the qualities needed - the only real known factor currently
is that it is likely to take a lot of time.

The general questions of the role of the confirming bodies, and of the role
of the liaisons probably need to be treated together, to produce something
consistent and workable, not treated seperately.

kre