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

[Phil Roberts <PRoberts@MEGISTO.com>]

Title: Message

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 body could be withdrawn.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.


[Phil Roberts] It might be the case though that the nomcom trying to balance between difficult choices would like to have back one of the

candidates the confirming body confirmed if another is candidate is rejected.  One might be in a situation for example where there is a large

turnover and the nomcom has determined that such a large turnover could be enough of a disruption to the community, that the nomcom, on

the community's behalf, is unwilling to change a large number and by being constrained with the already confirmed candidates has to make one change more than it is otherwise willing to do.  This would hardly be a summary reversal, but something quite considered.  The process would

be helped by allowing such an interaction.

 

Phil