Re: Possible extra "oral tradition" fordraft-ietf-nomcom-rfc2727bis-01.txt

[Brian E Carpenter <brian@hursley.ibm.com>]

James M Galvin wrote:
> 
> Given that
> 
> 1. Section 3 Item 1 requires the NOMCOM to be presented with the desired
>    qualifications along with the list of open positions;
> 
> 2. Section 3 Item 7 requires the NOMCOM to interact with the
>    confirming bodies during the confirmation process specifically to
>    explain their rationale for their choice;
> 
> 3. Section 5 Item 13 requires the NOMCOM to submit a testament as to
>    what qualifications a candidate meets and, if the candidate does not
>    meet the desired qualifications, must include a brief explanation of
>    the difference;
> 
> Do you still think we need to add your comment to the Oral Tradition?

Yes. Really. "We chose A instead of B because..." and "We decided not
to reappoint C because..." are not covered by the formal requirements,
but really do come up as contentious points during confirmation every
couple of years.

   Brian

> 
> Jim
> 
> On Tue, 9 Jul 2002, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> 
>     In my experience, the confirming bodies don't attempt to second-guess
>     the NomCom when it takes a controversial decision, but they
>     really want to know why that decision was taken, ... and whether the
>     NomCom consulted everybody they needed to. Rather than adding yet more
>     formal requirements, how about an extra "oral tradition" in the Appendix?
> 
>     5. Most NomComs will have to make one or two very difficult or
>        controversial decisions, and these are likely to lead to debate
>        within the relevant confirming body. Although not a formal
>        requirement, a NomCom is well advised to inform the confirming
>        body of why and how they made the choice that they did in such cases,
>        rather than waiting until the confirming body comes back with
>        questions.