Re: Should a CB approve a slate or individuals?

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

Just to be clear, since I now realise that what Avri wrote
was itself ambiguous.

The Nomcom should present a complete slate. The confirming
body should be able to reject individuals within that slate.

That's what RFC 2727 and draft-ietf-nomcom-rfc2727bis-03.txt
both say, in different words. This should not be changed.

  Brian

Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> 
> I fully support Mike. This would be a major change in the
> formal rules and the practice followed for the last ten years.
> I have seen no discussion that would motivate or justify
> such a change. The rule should stay as it is
> 
>   The confirming bodies review their respective slate ...[and]
>   consent to some, all, or none of the candidates.
> 
> MSJ has proposed some other changes to this key sentence, but
> this part shouldn't change.
> 
> Contrary to Avri, I find nothing ambiguous in RFC 2727 - it clearly
> implies a complete slate.
> 
>     Brian
> 
> Avri Doria wrote:
> >
> > Michael StJohns wrote:
> >
> >  > At 05:05 PM 3/31/2003 -0500, Avri Doria wrote:
> >  >
> >  >> Re: the question of reviewing a slate as whole or as individual
> >  >> candidates.
> >  >>
> >  >> While more often the case in selecting the IAB then IESG, though
> >  >> it does occur in the IESG as well, a slate is often picked for its
> >  >> balance of talents.  The recommendation of the DT is that a slate
> >  >> is sent to the CB as a whole and must be accepted as a whole.  In
> >  >> rejecting a slate, the CB is certainly encouraged to indicate what
> >  >> parts of the slate it finds unacceptable, but the NomCom can
> >  >> reconsider the entire slate and resubmit a slate with different
> >  >> candidates, even if some of the replaced candidates were acceptable
> >  >> to the CB during its prior review.  It is in keeping with this
> >  >> recommendation for the NomCom to submit a slate to the CB that does
> >  >> not fill all open roles.  In this case, the presented slate counts
> >  >> as a unit and its approval is not affected by any later submissions.
> >  >> To reiterate, a slate can only be accepted in its entirety, but t
> >  >> here is no rule stating that a slate must fill every vacancy - a
> >  >> slate is defined as being a single list of names and positions
> >  >> presented to the CB for approval.
> >  >> It is considered approved and unchangeable once the CB notifies the
> >  >> NomCom that it has been accepted.
> >  >
> >  >
> >  >
> >  > No.  Just no.  Its unfair and unreasonable to expect the CB to be able
> >  > to balance individuals against a complete slate.  The slate represents
> >  > no more than 1/2 of the sitting members of the body being appointed, the
> >  > change of one or two individuals based on a rejection should not be
> >  > considered to cause that much perturbation.  In any event, any imbalance
> >  > can be fixed in the following year.
> >  >
> >  > Confirmations are discussed and decided upon based on the qualifications
> >  > of an individual, not on the ability of the slate as a whole to succeed
> >  > or fail.   If I were managing the confirmation process for the IAB
> >  > (fortunately, that's Leslie's job), I wouldn't know how to frame the
> >  > question of whether to accept or reject a slate based on whether one or
> >  > more individuals were bad enough to prevent us from accepting the rest.
> >  > It may be possible to frame this for a single rejection, but you start
> >  > getting interesting combinatorial problems when you start thinking about
> >  > more than one unacceptable person.
> >  >
> >  > Please, leave this as a confirmation of individuals.  If an individual
> >  > fails of confirmation, it shouldn't be that traumatic to suggest an
> >  > alternative, even if the balance among the whole slate isn't exactly
> >  > what the Nomcom hoped it would be.  Think of it this way: if changing 1
> >  > or 2 fully qualified candidates (out of 12 or 18 total members) causes
> >  > so much perturbation,  there's a lot more wrong than the Nomcom can
> >  > actually fix.
> >  >
> >  > The suggestion that partial slates could go forward also fails.  It
> >  > needlessly extends the process without actually adding to the quality of
> >  > the result.
> >  >
> >
> > I am curious to hear some discussion of the list on this issue.
> > So far I think there have been only a few voices.  While I need
> > to review the list again, I think I have heard one voice for
> > voting as a slate and one against.
> >
> > As for RFC2727, I think it was ambiguous on the notion of a slate
> > of candidates versus single candidates.
> >
> > a.