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

[Phil Roberts <PRoberts@MEGISTO.com>]

> 
> Let me try and follow this.  I think what you're saying is 
> that for example 
> you've got 6 positions to fill.  Of the 6 you nominate 3 
> incumbents and 3 
> new folks.  The confirming body confirms the three new folks, 
> 2 of the 
> incumbents, and rejects 1 incumbent.  You would then want to 
> withdraw one 
> of the newly confirmed new folk, and replace them with the 
> incumbent and 
> the same time you're sending another new person to replace 
> the rejected 
> incumbent because otherwise you'd have "too many changes".

Right.

> 
> Umm...this is wrong is so many ways that I don't even know 
> how to begin.

Seems all too right to me.

> 
> 
> The guideline of "try not to make too many changes" is 
> exactly that, a 
> guideline and is helpful for selecting between otherwise 
> relatively equally 
> qualified candidates.  Its not a suicide pact.  If you had 
> six failing 
> incumbents you would be derelict in your duty if you failed 
> to replace them 
> all.  Period.  If the nomcom at first pass decided that a new 
> person was 
> better qualified than the incumbent, and the confirming body 
> agreed, there 
> literally is no fair and equitable way of invalidating that 
> confirmation 
> without involving the confirmee.

It might make sense to have the confirming body confirm or reject
a slate with reasons for rejecting a slate that include "candidate
x is not acceptable."  It might just be the case that an alternate
slate that didn't include x didn't include y as well, who the confirming
body would be willing to confirm.  It might not always be the case
that a bunch of individuals outweighs the value of a group.


> 
> The nomcom should do the best it can and select the best 
> candidates it can 
> and not worry overly much about secondary considerations 
> after the first pass.

Well, I agree, but perhaps based on our separate experiences we differ
about what are primary and secondary considerations?

Phil

> 
> 
>