Re: Should a CB approve a slate or individuals?

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

below...

Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
> 
> --On tirsdag, april 01, 2003 13:02:29 +1000 Geoff Huston <gih@telstra.net>
> wrote:
> 
> > I am of the view that the most effective process is one of individual
> > confirmation or rejection , rather than confirmation or rejection of the
> > entire slate of names.
> >
> > The task here is to pick the best qualified individuals for each open
> > position, and the focus should be on the attributes of the individual to
> > the requirements of the open position. Treating this as a slate tends to
> > make the entire confirmation process tougher.
> 
> There have been cases in the past where it's been quite obvious that two
> people should not serve on the IESG together. Mostly because of fundamental
> disagreements about how to run a single area ("incompatibe co-ADs"), but
> there could be other versions of this problem.
> 
> If A and B were both considered "good people" by Nomcom, and A was
> advanced, but rejected, it would be logical for Nomcom to consider putting
> B into another slot for which he was better qualified than the original
> proposal, since the consideration that blocked him from being considered
> has gone away.
> 
> Similarly, if A was advanced, and accepted, but another candidate was
> rejected, and B was the only reasonable alternative, the Nomcom would
> logically have to consider withdrawing A from the slate.
> 
> Locking the process to "individuals only" would then produce a suboptimal
> result.
> 
> That's not what we expect to be the common case, but I'd like to have the
> possibility open.
> 

Since this part of RFC 2727 isn't broken, why are we trying to fix it?

   Brian