Re: Should the NomCom rules define CB voting behavior

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

A little history about that clause in the IAB charter (which
I drafted). Some IAB members at the time objected to introducing
any kind of voting rule in the charter. As Chair, I felt fairly
strongly that we needed something, in case a tricky decision
needed to be taken, and that we needed something that would 
allow for strong consensus rather than a simple majority. So we
ended up requiring 7 "yes" (i.e. one more than a simple majority)
and the ability for 3 people (not 2) to block a decision.
In practice, in my experience, we never had to use this rule.

I agree that we need a Nomcom process that terminates, but
I would hate to see us abandoning the strong consensus
philosophy.

   Brian

Avri Doria wrote:
> 
> 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.