Re: Should the NomCom rules define CB voting behavior

[Michael StJohns <mstjohns@mindspring.com>]

At 11:12 AM 4/2/2003 +0200, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> 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.

 From the BCP:

   The IAB may make decisions and take action if at least

   seven full members concur and there are no more than two dissents.

Let's restate this by taking it from the other end and shaking
it:

        

The IAB
may not make a decision if there are more than two dissents, and unless
seven full members concur.

This has the same meaning as the BCP, but shows the problem
clearer.  1) If too many people abstain, the IAB may not make a
decision., 2) If three people dissent, the IAB may not make a decision,
3) If too many people have to recuse themselves it may be impossible to
find seven concurrences.

Refusing to make a decision is different than deciding to say
no.

Let's pretend for a moment that we fix the language so that it really
does mean decide to say no, rather than refuse to decide.  There's
still a problem with this type of criteria in that the result of a
question depends upon how the question is formed.  Take for example
a consideration of an appeal:  Q:  Shall we uphold the
appeal?  Concur 7, dissent 3, not voting 3.  Appeal is not
upheld.  Q:  Shall we reject the appeal? Concur 3, Dissent 7,
not voting 3.  Appeal is not rejected - i.e. its upheld.  Same
set of people with the same set of issues and there's a different result.


A simple majority seems to have the  virtue of simplicity.  A
simple majority of the qualified members seems to be a prudent change, at
least for the Nomcom, but probably for other things.

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

That's a much longer conversation than I have energy for right now. 
In the abstract I agree with you, in the concrete, it feels too much like
designing an OSI protocol (e.g. TP0, 2, 4) where every possible option or
design choice tried to get stuck into the protocol.  *sigh*


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