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

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

I took a few days off from this thread to pay attention to my day job...

Michael StJohns wrote:
> 
> Hi Brian -
> 
> I appreciate that you disagree, but you haven't provided any reasoning
> behind your thoughts so its difficult for me to make any further comment.
> I've supported my thoughts, it would be helpful to me and probably to others
> if you would provide more detail than that you simply disagree.
> 
> See below for a comment on the specific item you commented on.
> 
> -------Original Message-------
> From: Brian E Carpenter <brian@hursley.ibm.com>
> Sent: 03/25/03 12:18 PM
> To: Michael StJohns <mstjohns@mindspring.com>
> Subject: Re: Notes from one member of the IAB on the current draft
> 
> >
> > 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 body could be withdrawn.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
> 
> This is actually already in the text in other places - in fact in the
> paragraph following the one referenced.  And I repeat - it is not and should
> not be a consultive communication - the confirming body should be free to
> deliberate without undue influence from the Nomcom.  The confirming body
> should be free to seek information, it should not be soliciting opinion from the
> Nomcom past that implied by the submission of the particular candidate.

OK, you are bothered by the word "consult" in a way that I'm not. I would
certainly agree to a more neutral word such as "communicate". In the cases 
where I've been involved, the communication has in fact been interrogatory
(i.e. the confirming body asks the NomCom "Did you consider issue X when 
choosing nominee Y?" or "Did you seek an opinion about nominee Y from 
source Z?").

Now let me try to be constructive. How would you find this as a 
replacement for section 3, paragraph 7 sub paragraph 3 paragraph 
beginning "If some or none..." ?

  If not all the candidates submitted to a confirming body are 
  rapidly confirmed, the confirming body continues to communicate
  with the nominating committee both to understand the committee's 
  rationale for the slate and, if appropriate, to explain the reason 
  why all the candidates were not confirmed.  

  The confirming body may ask the nominating committee for additional 
  information about a nominee, or about the nominating committee's procedure,
  to assist them in their deliberations. However, the confirming body 
  and the nominating committee must refrain from mutual communication
  about availability, qualification or characteristics of other possible
  candidates for the position.

Then extend the following paragraph to become:

  The confirming body may reject individual candidates, in
  which case the nominating committee must select alternate
  candidates for the rejected candidates, and in the case of 
  the IESG, may possibly change the positions to which already 
  confirmed candidates are appointed.

     Brian