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

[Michael StJohns <mstjohns@mindspring.com>]

At 09:51 AM 4/1/2003 +0200, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> Mike,
>
> I am OK with your comments. One remark at the very end...
>
> > > 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.

Hi Brian -

The reason I've been so adamant about the above is that its really the 
argument between whether confirmation is by person or by slate.  If the 
Nomcom has the ability to shuffle already confirmed folks without asking 
permission of anyone (the CB or the person confirmed) then the process is 
effectively confirmation by slate.  N.B.:  If the confirming body rejected 
a single candidate but approved everyone else, the Nomcom could, under the 
language I've seen, withdraw the entire slate and submit a whole new group 
of folks for confirmation.

The language you suggest does fix this - and I like the idea that the 
confirming body, in addition to the confirmed nominee (regardless of 
whether they've been notified) have to approve this.

Thanks - Mike