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

[James M Galvin <galvin+ietf-nomcom@eListX.com>]

Speaking as editor of the document:



On Mon, 31 Mar 2003, Michael StJohns wrote:

    At 09:46 PM 3/31/2003 -0500, Avri Doria wrote:

    >Michael StJohns wrote:
    >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.

Just to be clear about my instructions, there has never been working
group consensus to prohibit a person from serving on both the IAB and
the IESG (the IETF Chair is a special case).  Thus, I have not been
directed to make any change with respect to this issue.

    > >  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????

    This is actually two different threads which have some interaction.

    The first thread is the interaction between the question of whether or not
    someone should serve on both boards with the question of when the Nomcom
    should act to replace someone who's on one board who is then confirmed on
    the other.

You are exactly correct and the proposed text is -- in my opinion --
more of a clarification than a change.

Specifically, the recommendation from the design team is to address the
issue of "poaching an individual from one body for another" by calling
it out and ensuring it is processed according the rules as currently
specified in the rest of the document.  What this means is that a
vacancy does not exist until it is "announced".  For this reason there
needs to be a two step process.

The NOMCOM proposes a slate that includes the person being poached.
After that slate is fully confirmed -- through ordinary process -- then
the poached person gets to decide if they are going to resign or not
(see note above about serving on two bodies).

Presumably all those involved actually know about the resignation in
advance, just as a practical matter.  However it is not required.

Assuming the poached person resigns, then the NOMCOM addresses the issue
of a slate for the new vacancy.  Since presumably all the relevant
parties knew about the resignation in advance, the NOMCOM can prepare in
advance to deal with this vacancy.

Note, too, that the clarification will not require all this to be
public.  The resignation can be confidential and set to take effect at
some time in the future.  It will be become public when the slates are
announced.  This is the wiggle room that will be allowed in the timing
of the process.

Jim