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

[Michael StJohns <mstjohns@mindspring.com>]

At 10:04 PM 3/28/2003 +0100, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> I took a few days off from this
> thread to pay attention to my day job...
>
> Michael StJohns wrote:
> > >
> > > 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 body could be withdrawn.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. 

Sorry to go back to this, but should have commented before.  Its
actually important to your current submission.

"... confirmed candidates would never know." Except in the case
that the IAB is considering an IESG where a current IAB member has been
submitted.  The IAB member is disqualified from participating in
their own confirmation, but not in others. Current practice generally has
the confirmation or rejection of the IAB IESG candidate first, and then
bringing in that IAB member to consider the rest of the candidates and
positions.  There are other reasons related to process deadlock why
this is a bad idea which we can get in to if necessary.


> 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.

As can I, but I stress that its not the Nomcom's choice to summarily
reverse a previous confirmation.  See my previous comments on how to
equitably handle this issue.  It shouldn't take more than a day for
the Nomcom to ASK the confirmee if they're willing to be moved once
they've been confirmed.

> 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?").

And those are questions of fact, not of opinion.   Also, I'm
not looking for neutral, I'm looking for accurate. 
"Communicate" is at least non-egregious, and probably accurate
enough for this.

> 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 

Where did "rapidly" come from?  Remove.  Once the
slate is handed to the confirming body, the Nomcom is out of the loop
until the confirming body responds.  As stated, implies that the
Nomcom gets to start prodding the confirming body.  The prodding if
any should probably come from the IESG Secretary?

Also, the type of communication we're talking about more appropriately
happens BEFORE the confirming body actually makes a decision. 



> confirmed, the confirming
> body



>  continues to
> communicate

"may communicate" - continues to communicate implies that it
was already having a dialog, and also that such communication is
mandatory on the part of the confirming body.  The confirming body
may believe, with good justification, that it has all necessary
information it needs.

>   with the nominating
> committee both to understand the committee's 
>   rationale for the slate

See below.

>  and, if appropriate, to
> explain the reason 
>   why all the candidates were not confirmed. 



So replace this with

"During the course of its deliberations, the confirming body may communicate with the nominating committee to understand the committee's rationale for the slate, and the rationale for any specific nominee.  If the confirming body chooses not to confirm one or more candidates, it is appropriate and helpful, but not mandatory,  for the confirming body to provide a brief explanation to the nominating committee of the reasoning behind the failure to confirm to assist the nominating committee in its selection of an alternate."

  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.
Yup.

> 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, 

Yup.

> and in the case of 
>   the IESG, may possibly change the positions to which already 
>   confirmed candidates are appointed.

NO.  For all the reasons I've stated before.  There is no
reason the Nomcom can't ASK a selectee if they'll give up their position,
but they don't get to do it unilaterally.   Also, as stated
implies that the nomcom can take any confirmee and stick them in any slot
without further reference to the confirming body.  



>     
> Brian


Obviously, if any of this makes it in its going to require at least one
editing pass to make sure it all works together.

Later, Mike