Re: Should someone be prohibited from serving in 2 roles?

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

I agree with Mike, there was no discussion on the list which
leads to a change from draft-ietf-nomcom-rfc2727bis-03.txt.

One more comment in-line...

Avri Doria wrote:
> 
> Michael StJohns wrote:
> 
>  > At 05:05 PM 3/31/2003 -0500, Avri Doria wrote:
> ---
>  >>
>  >> Re: Discretion of the IAB or IESG over whether a midterm
>  >> vacancies must be filled.
>  >>
>  >> 2727bis allegedly removed discretion for whether a mid-term
>  >> vacancy should be filled by the NomCom.
>  >>
>  >> Note:  In rereading the document, I am not sure this is
>  >>        the case.  We certainly removed the discretion of
>  >>        which NomCom picks if a position is to be filled.
>  >>        Since a NomCom only fills position on instruction
>  >>        from the ExDir and since the I* notifies the ExDir
>  >>        of which positions to fill and since midterm vacancies
>  >>        are filled under all standing rules other then those
>  >>        having to do with which NomCom does the choosing, it
>  >>        is not clear to me that we actually ever made the
>  >>        change we think we made.
>  >>
>  >> The recommendation of the DT is that the discretion should remain
>  >> with the body that looses a member.  This means that the language for
>  >> mid term vacancies should be clarified to indicate this.
>  >> Essentially, from the NomCom point of view, a vacancy exists only
>  >> when the ExDir informs it of a vacancy.  The resignation per se
>  >> does not constitute such notification.
>  >>
>  >> ----
>  >>
>  >> Re: Poaching rules
>  >>
>  >> It has been the practice of NomCom to not only choose candidates
>  >> from members of the other sitting body, but to nominate replacements
>  >> for that person at the same time.
>  >>
>  >> For several reasons, the DT believes this is inappropriate:
>  >>
>  >> - As a vacancy does not exist until a resignation occurs, there
>  >> is no vacancy until the candidate is confirmed.
>  >> - Further, it can be argued that since there is no rule against
>  >> serving on both bodies at the same time (though there is advice
>  >> against this practice), the position is not vacant until the
>  >> confirmed candidates resigns the prior position.
>  >> - As stated in the document and in the recommendation above, a
>  >> vacancy does not exist until the ExDir notifies the NomCom that
>  >> it does exist.
>  >>
>  >> There is, however, interest in keeping the process efficient.
>  >> the DT therefore decided to recommend a 2 stage process:
>  >>
>  >> 1. The candidate is confirmed and is advised to immediately
>  >> resign from the prior post.  This resignation does not need to
>  >> be made public immediately, nor does it need to take effect
>  >> until a later time.  The NomCom is notified of the pending
>  >> resignation by the ExDir.
>  >> 2. The NomCom then nominates a candidate for the 'to be vacant'
>  >> post.  Since the NomCom can predict this vacancy, it can be
>  >> ready with a candidate.

I think this is unnecessary complexity for a very narrowly
conceived pseudo-legal reason, and a total waste of everybody's
time. Let's just not go there. Leave the draft as it is.

   Brian

>  >>
>  >> An aside:  We also do not have any rule against someone
>  >>            holding 2 AD spots.  I think this rule will also
>  >>            cover the case of someone being nominated for a
>  >>            different AD spot then they currently hold. As
>  >>            to what happens if someone wishes to hold
>  >>            both spots - that is not in the NomCom purview.
>  >>
>  >> ----
>  >>
>  >> Re: Question of whether someone can be a member of both the IAB and
>  >> the IESG  (or hold 2 AD spots)
>  >>
>  >> This was discussed earlier in this WG process and the consensus
>  >> was that while this is inadvisable, it should not be prohibited
>  >> by rule. Advise was therefore inserted in the advice section.
>  >
>  >
>  >
>  > The above three items interact poorly.  Because a) there's no rule
>  > prohibiting being on both IAB and IESG, then b) there's no requirement
>  > that a person appointed to the IESG resign from the IAB, then c) the
>  > Nomcom shouldn't a priori nominate an IAB replacement.  This actually
>  > happened this time around and caused more than a little consternation
>  > and confusion.  Either being a member on both is prohibited - in which
>  > case the Nomcom can act to do the replacement as part of the
>  > confirmation process; or its not prohibited, which suggest its a very
>  > separate action from the normal replacement process.  Pick one - PLEASE
>  > don't leave this to chance and good will.  For example, what happens if
>  > IAB member A is nominated and confirmed for a position on the IESG, but
>  > refuses to resign from the IAB????
> 
> Then he or she would end up serving on both.
> this was discussed at length and I believe that
> the consensus was that while this is not to be
> recommended, it should not be prohibited and
> thus is advised against, but not prohibited.
> 
>  >
>  > Please simplify this by explicitly prohibiting dual membership - there
>  > is no real reason not to.
> 
> I think there was an assumption that there was not an
> absolute reason for forbidding it and therefore there
> was no consensus for forbidding it.  There was consensus
> for recommending against it.
> 
> a.