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

[Matt Holdrege <matt.holdrege@verizon.net>]

At 06:08 PM 7/14/2002, John C Klensin wrote:
> 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.

The nomcom does make a report to the confirming body and it should inform 
the confirming body about how it followed the procedure. Of course nomcom 
cannot go into detail of why each member voted the way they did. I hope no 
one is suggesting that?!?  As for what is appropriate, that is already 
detailed in RFC 2727. If the confirming body doesn't like the nomcom 
report, it can and should relate it's concerns to the nomcom email list.

> 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.

People can say "I'm not changing my mind", but there is no point in 
worrying about that until they actually see the concerns or evidence. We 
can say we prefer person X over person Y based on all the data points we 
have received so far. If the confirming body claims to have more data 
points that might sway the vote, then it should present them ASAP and let 
the nomcom review them. But basically you've put yourself in the nomcom's 
hands and you have to hope they do right. With the breadth of people on the 
nomcom plus chair and liaison's, I doubt you'll ever see anything go 
horribly wrong.