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

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

--On Sunday, 14 July, 2002 15:38 -0700 Matt Holdrege
<matt.holdrege@verizon.net> wrote:

> There is procedure and all nomcom members are watched by each
> other, the chair and the liaisons. So while nomcom members have
> free will in their deliberations, they do not have freedom to
> act outside of procedures.
> 
> It is essential to protect the freedom of the nomcom when it
> comes to making choices. We don't "ignore everything and do
> what we want". Rather we listen to everything and *then* vote
> as we please. The  process ensures that we are presented with
> as many data points as we can get. After that, it's all in the
> hands of individual consciences.
> 
> Given the above (if you will), what needs to change?
> Democracies do not ensure that you will get what you want. So,
> unless you want to eliminate democracy or move to an unworkable
> form of democracy (we create membership and we all vote), I
> don't see what we can change?

We have a two-stage process, in which the nomcom produces
recommendations for confirming bodies to review and act on.  The
clearer we are about expectations about how the nomcom makes
decisions and what is (and is not) appropriate, the better
framework we have for review and dialog between the confirming
bodies and the nomcom.  

To the extent to which such guidelines do not exist, the process
of review by the confirming bodies tends to deteriorate into
"this doesn't seem right, are you sure?" and "we will, more or
less enthusiastically, go through the motions of whatever
additional review you ask for, but there is no chance that we
will actually reconsider" interactions.  We've seen what appears
to be that pattern on and off over the years, and it doesn't seem
to me to be healthy.

    john