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

[Michael StJohns <mstjohns@mindspring.com>]

Let me break this down into pieces as to why I think this paragraph is
fraught with difficulties.

At 05:37 PM 3/24/2003 +0100, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> 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:
> > 
> > >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

"consult" has the definition "to ask the advice or opinion
of" and neither are appropriate forms of interaction between bodies
where some check or balance is desired.  Confirming body: "What
do you think of our decision not to confirm foo? "  Nomcom:
"Obviously you're mistaken and you really should consider these
additional things that we forgot to tell you before." 
Confirming body:  "But we've already rejected him/her so what's
the point?"

Gleaning more information about candidates prior to the "vote"
or whatever passes for the confirmation action by the confirming body
seems to make sense.  E.g. Confirming body to Nomcom: "Could
you give us more information about 'foo', specifically has 'foo' ever had
experience doing X?"   Doing this after the fact for a
candidate that's already been rejected seems to me to be a waste of
time.  The paragraph immediately after this paragraph says 

           The
confirming body may reject individual candidates, in
           which case
the nominating committee must select alternate
           candidates
for the rejected candidates.

Which is pretty clear that once the candidate is rejected they may not be
re-proposed.

The replacement text covering this is: ""The confirming body
may ask for additional information about a nominee  from the Nomcom
to assist them in their deliberations."  

>  to explain the reason
> why
> >
> >           
> all the candidates were not confirmed and 

There are a number of problems with this particular phrase.  As
stated it implies there is a frameable consensus reason a candidate or
candidates did not get confirmed.  In reality, each member of the
confirming body may have their reasons why they voted for or against
confirmation.  That argues against a consensus statement of the
reason the confirming body didn't confirm.  Absent any other
information,  the assumed reason should be "The confirming body
was unable to find a majority who agreed the candidate was qualified for
the position." which is a factual statement rather than an
opinion.

The second problem is that the tone seems to suggest the confirming body
have good reason for rejecting the candidate. I believe this needs to be
reversed - that the confirming bodies have good reason to accept the
candidates.   If you see the policy section of my original
message I suggest some text related to the rationale for a members vote -
specifically:

"Confirmation should not be a rubber stamp of the Nomcom's selections, but a reasoned and reasonable consideration of the nominee's qualifications for the position. A vote to confirm is an affirmative action which should indicate the member's confidence in the ability of the nominee to accomplish the goals of the position and the work of the IETF."

Each group has its strengths.  The Nomcom has the charge to
form its slate based on the best knowledge it can glean from interviews,
personal knowledge, discussion, resumes etc.  It brings a new point
of view to the process of finding good people.  The confirming
bodies have the advantage of continuity, longevity, and experience in the
day to day operations of the IETF/IESG/IAB.  They provide a needed
check on the Nomcom which might not have the benefit of the corporate
memory, especially if random selection seeds the Nomcom with high
proportions of relative newcomers.

> to understand the
> >
> >           
> nominating committee's rationale for the slate.  

Confirming bodies confirm candidates, not the slate.  Again, this
type of inquiry is better left to the discussion before the vote rather
than after and should be part of the charge to the Nomcom.  Section
5 subsection 14 says

       " The nominating committee
advises the confirming bodies of their
        candidates, specifying a
single candidate for each open position
        and testifying as to how each
candidate meets the qualifications
        of an open position.

        For each candidate, the
testimony must include a brief statement
        of the qualifications for the
position that is being filled,
        which may be exactly the
qualifications that were requested.  If
        the qualifications differ from
the desired qualifications
        originally requested a brief
statement explaining the difference
        must be included.

        The testimony may include
either or both a brief resume of the
        candidate or a brief summary
of the deliberations of the
        nominating
committee."

I'd modify the first paragraph of this section slightly to include a
requirement the nomcom describe any external factors to the
qualifications specific to a position- e.g. not more than X new people
desired, some security clue in general, etc.  The confirming body
can of course ask for more information, but ask BEFORE making its
decision.

> During the
> >
> >           
> course of the consultation the nominating committee may
> >
> >           
> re-examine the slate of candidates and may change it in any
> >
> >           
> way.
> > 


This implies that the candidates already confirmed by the confirming body
could be withdrawn.  I think that's a *really really really* bad
idea and unfair to the confirmed candidates.  

However, it would seem to be permissible for the nomcom to take someone
who was just confirmed (AFTER discussing it with the confirmed candidate)
and offer him/her as a candidate for the slot where another candidate was
rejected.  E.g. A candidate the Nomcom considers qualified either as
a Area A AD or an Area B AD is proposed as Area A AD and confirmed,
another candidate is proposed as Area B AD is rejected.  The Nomcom
could ask the confirmed Area A AD if he/she was willing to be proposed as
Area B AD, propose him/her and in addition propose a new Area A AD. 

And no, I don't think the Nomcom can do this unilaterally - once the
candidate is confirmed, the slot is filled and the Nomcom shouldn't get
to say "we were just kidding, we didn't mean it" regardless of
what happens with other slots.