Re: Should the NomCom rules define CB voting behavior

[Avri Doria <avri@acm.org>]

Michael StJohns wrote:

> I also am more than adamantly opposed to any underspecification 
> of the process which can lead to the PROCESS not completing. 

There was an extensive discussion on this specific point early in
the process of this WG.  At that time, though the specific examples
may have differed, there was a WG rough consensus that certain
conditions could lead to a vacancy not being filled because the
CB and the NomCom could not reach a satisfactory closure, and that
that was acceptable, if not optimal.

I do not believe there has been new evidence or new issues brought
up to reopen this issue.  At that time it was argued that such an
inability would not be disastrous and that allowing the process to
continue to a natural progression was preferable to establishing
any rule to force closure.

> 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.

As I mentioned there was extensive discussion on this list earlier (these
should be available in the archives) on the fact that it was ok to leave
a  selection open if no agreement could be reached.

In terms of the IAB procedures, while I may agree that this could be
seen as a process problem, I do not see it as being within the NomCom
WG charter to resolve.

a.