Re: Question 1 about deadlock issue

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

James M Galvin wrote:
...
>     2nd - includes selection A as the default process for the CB without
>     a process in place.
> 
> I object to the default being that a candidate is rejected if the
> confirming body deadlocks or otherwise is unable or fails to take
> action.  The NOMCOM is the voice of the community and preference should
> be given to their actions.  The confirming body is supposed to check the
> work of the NOMCOM and if they are unable to do that then there is a
> serious problem, which itself is fixed by the NOMCOM.  

Not if the deadlocked CB is the ISOC Board, and not soon enough if the
deadlocked CB is the IAB.

> ...Clearly the
> NOMCOM is the primary authority.

Is that clear? In a checks-and-balances system, there is not always
a primary authority, although there may be a final appeals court.

> I prefer that we be silent on the default action but Proposal B where
> the default action is confirmation would also be acceptable.

Ran's original argument on this, which persuaded me to prefer A, was

>> if a candidate is so controversial that at least 50%
>> of the confirming body is not actively supportive of a given candidate
>> then that candidate is clearly not the best choice for the Internet
>> community. 

which says that the CB trumps the Nomcom. We had indeed better
be clear about that, one way or the other. Since in our present
constitution, the CBs are also the process appeals bodies, we have to
be even more clear.

   Brian