Re: Re: Should the NomCom rules define CB voting behavior

[Michael StJohns <mstjohns@mindspring.com>]

Unfortunately, this is a good example of why the Nomcom document SHOULD specify and control the "voting process" for confirmation.  This section (IAB charter) was cited during the IAB discussions but after discussion it was clear that the NOMCOM process was not considered when that section was written, so we ended up depending on what was in 2727.  Trust me, it was better that way, even though 2727 had the weird language about half accept or half reject.

I like to think of it this way.  The confirmation process is one that involves the members of the IAB or ISOC board, not necessarily the IAB or ISOC board themselves.  In the US an equivalent analogy would be the US House of Representatives which meets both as the House and as a Committee of the Whole.  There are different rules and procedures for each, but they both consist of nominally the same people, and are convened for different purposes.  So I don't necessarily think that the IAB process for doing confirmation has to be its normal process for doing things like writing documents, doing process reviews, or hearing appeals.

I also am more than adamantly opposed to any underspecification of the process which can lead to the PROCESS not completing.  For example, take the interaction of the DT's proposed language leaving the process for deciding how to confirm in the hands of the CB with the IAB's charter as mentioned by Brian.  Its possible for two IAB members to prevent the process from going forward. Period.  By that I don't mean that two IAB members can prevent a confirmation of a selectee, I mean that two members can prevent the IAB from making ANY decision for or against a selectee.  In the mid-term case, there's a timeout - if the CB doesn't act, the person is considered confirmed.  In the normal case, no time out and no way of forcing the issue.  And, without saying too much, this is not an abstract issue.

I'm not proposing the same set of timeouts for the normal process - I actually don't like them on the mid-term process, because I think a confirmation should be an affirmation, not a "not enough energy to object" type of thing.

So, set the objective standard - that at least of a majority of the confirming body has to agree to confirm - let the CBs set their own process within that standard, and make it clear that the standard for the Nomcom process does not apply to other CB activities, and that other CB standards don't apply to the Nomcom process.

-------Original Message-------
From: Brian E Carpenter <brian@hursley.ibm.com>
Sent: 04/01/03 11:22 AM
To: "Joel M. Halpern" <joel@stevecrocker.com>
Subject: Re: Should the NomCom rules define CB voting behavior

> 
> Joel,

The Nomcom document should not do this. BCP 39 is already quite clear:

3.5 Decision taking

   The IAB attempts to reach all decisions unanimously.  If unanimity
   cannot be achieved, the chair may conduct informal polls to determine
   consensus.  The IAB may make decisions and take action if at least
   seven full members concur and there are no more than two dissents.

Regards
    Brian

"Joel M. Halpern" wrote:
> 
> It seems clear to me that the nomcom documents should not specify the
IAB
> decision process and better not specify the ISOC board decision process.
> 
> Yours,
> Joel M. Halpern
> 
> At 10:01 PM 3/31/2003 -0500, you wrote:
> 
> >Michael StJohns wrote:
> >
> > > At 05:05 PM 3/31/2003 -0500, Avri Doria wrote:
> > >
> > >> Re. The rules under which the CB decides to accept or not
> > >> accept a slate. I.e. should 2727bis require a majority.
> > >>
> > >> It is the recommendation of the DT that it is not in the NomCom's
> > >> purview to decide how the CB makes it decisions.  The
recommendation
> > >> is that 2727bis remove the requirement that at least 1/2 the CB
> > >> approve a slate.  NomCom rules are for the NomCom, not the CBs,
they
> > >> make their decisions by whatever process their charters or practice
> > >> dictate.
> > >
> > >
> > > Again, please don't leave this in the hands of the CB.  The process
at
> > > which the CB reaches a majority can safely be left there, but, if
this
> > > is not externally specified, its not a given that the CB will
establish
> > > rules to deal with the edge cases.
> > >
> > > Please specify at least the minimum required to let the CBs come to
a
> > > conclusion.
> > >
> >
> >discussion?

----------------------------------------------------------------
To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription
manager: <http://lists.elistx.com/subscribe>
>