Re: deadlock problem

[RJ Atkinson <rja@extremenetworks.com>]

On Tuesday, May 13, 2003, at 11:48 America/Montreal, Michael StJohns 
wrote:
> It would be appropriate and useful for the NOMCOM document to provide 
> specific guidance, but allow the confirming bodies to override the 
> guidance if they issue written procedures. 

>  "Absent any written procedures by the confirming bodies which 
> explicitly mention and consider the confirmation process, the 
> confirming bodies shall require an affirmative vote by the majority of 
> the qualified members of that confirming body to confirm any given 
> candidate.  A member MUST disqualify themselves from voting on any 
> question of their tenure in office or confirmation."

This seems like a reasonable compromise.  For the would-be lawyers 
among us,
it lets the confirming body explicitly create rules which would take
precedence (if that body so desires), yet for the practical among us it
provides a good workable process.

I would further state that the confirming body's process (if created)
ought to be required to be free of any deadlock state -- since we know
experimentally that deadlocks are real rather than theoretical issues.

> So... Brian, do you expect the IAB charter to be a normative reference 
> for the NOMCOM document?  The ISOC charter?

Certainly I would expect them to be normative references iff the 
decision
is to delete the current paragraph -- on grounds that the actually
define part of the Nomcom procedures.

Is the ISOC Charter published in an RFC anyplace where it would be
widely accessible ?  If not, then maybe that also should be undertaken,
particularly given the new role of the IAB in putting folks on the ISOC
BoT.

Ran
rja@extremenetworks.com