Re: Notes from one member of the IAB on the current draft

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

Well, we plain disagree. I found this paragraph perfect when chairing
both the confirming bodies, and didn't have any issue of separation
of function.

   Brian

Michael StJohns wrote:
> 
> At 01:33 AM 3/24/2003 +0100, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> >Most of these suggestions seem fine, but...
> >
> >Michael StJohns wrote:
> >
> >...
> > >  >>Replace section 3, paragraph 7 sub paragraph 3 paragraph beginning "If
> > > some or none..." with:
> > >
> > > "The confirming body may ask for additional information about a nominee
> > > from the Nomcom to assist them in their deliberations. However, both the
> > > confirming body and Nomcom should refrain from discussions of the
> > > availability, qualification or characteristics of other possible
> > candidates
> > > for the position."
> >
> >I have no problem with this as *additional* text, but I would object
> >to removing the original "If some or none..." paragraph, which I
> >believe is very necessary in its present form.
> >
> >    Brian
> 
> Hi Brian -
> 
> The text removed was:
> 
> >If some or none of the candidates submitted to a confirming
> >            body are confirmed, the confirming body continues to consult
> >            with the nominating committee both to explain the reason why
> >            all the candidates were not confirmed and to understand the
> >            nominating committee's rationale for the slate.  During the
> >            course of the consultation the nominating committee may
> >            re-examine the slate of candidates and may change it in any
> >            way.
> 
> I find this paragraph to be particularly problematic.  The paragraph as
> written would tend to make the confirming bodies adjuncts of the Nomcom
> rather bodies with their own purpose.
> 
> Both the Nomcom and the confirming body have distinct and separate duties
> in the nominating process.  Having an on-going discussion about the
> relative merits of individual candidates seems to me to be a problem with
> separation of powers. If a confirming body chooses to not confirm a
> candidate, the rationale should be clear - i.e. the confirming body was
> unable to find a majority of members who were willing to confirm.  The
> individual members rationale for deciding not to confirm are relevant to
> the discussions within the confirming body, but are inappropriate to be
> shared outside that body.  [The confirming bodies are not made privy to the
> Nomcom discussions on the candidates, they're just provided with the output
> of that discussion.  It seems inappropriate for discussions/debate to be
> shared back from the confirming bodies to the Nomcom.]
> 
> Also, allowing the Nomcom to re-shuffle the slate seems also to be
> problematic as candidates are confirmed or rejected as individuals.
> 
> The Nomcom should offer its best candidates, make its case, and permit the
> confirming bodies to do their due diligence.  If a confirming body chooses
> not to confirm a candidate,  there shouldn't be an argument or discussion
> between the confirming body and the Nomcom as to whether either the Nomcom
> selection or the confirming body rejection was the right answer - that
> would denigrate the integrity of both processes and tend to lead to enmity
> between the two bodies.  If a candidate fails of selection, the Nomcom
> should then provide its next candidate.  Its probably useful, but shouldn't
> be required, for a confirming body to provide some general guidance as to
> why a candidate failed - it may be the confirming body may not have
> consensus on the reasons they failed to confirm, just that the candidate
> was not deemed acceptable.