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

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

Mike,

I am OK with your comments. One remark at the very end...

Michael StJohns wrote:
> 
> 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 body could be withdrawn.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.

I agree, it shouldn't be unilateral, in the case where a nominee has
already been informed. But the language mustn't be too rigid, either,
because it's entirely possible that a nominee has already told the
Nomcom that s/he would accept either of a couple of positions. Try

   and in the case of
   the IESG, may optionally propose a change in the positions to 
   which already confirmed nominees are appointed, with the
   consent of those nominees and the approving 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