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

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

Mike, I can only repeat that I simply don't see any of these aspects as problems,
except for one logical issue you point out:

> 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 This implies that the candidates already confirmed by the confirming body could be withdrawn.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.  

Well, all this process remains under the seal of confidentiality, so
the confirmed candidates would never know. But I agree, it would be very
bizarre to withdraw a nomination at this stage, although I can imagine
an AD nominee being renominated to a different Area or even to IETF Chair,
after the confirming body rejected a nominee. So we need a sentence
that enables NomCom to react flexibly to a rejection, without endorsing
egregious actions.

   During the course of the consultation, the nominating committee may
   adjust the slate of candidates in response to the confirming body's
   partial confirmation, by replacing the nominees who were not already
   confirmed, and in the case of the IESG, possibly by changing the positions 
   to which already confirmed candidates are appointed.

     Brian

Michael StJohns wrote:
> 
> 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.