Re: Question 1 about deadlock issue

[RJ Atkinson <rja@extremenetworks.com>]

On Thursday, May 15, 2003, at 08:36 America/Montreal, Brian E Carpenter 
wrote:
> 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.

Further, having been on IAB for 4 years of confirmations, I can say
that the IAB is *unable* to perform any plausible process-check on
any Nomcom.  The Nomcom confidentiality rules preclude the
IAB from having sufficient visibility into how the process was
performed for the IAB to perform a meaningful process-check on
the Nomcom.

So the only check the IAB is really capable of performing is whether
the nominated person is a reasonable fit for the position specified.
(NB: "reasonable" is deliberately chosen above rather than "ideal"
or even "preferred" -- in order to give Nomcom appropriate operating
room).

> > ...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

I'm with Brian on this.  We can't be ambiguous.

If one doesn't like the balance of (A) or (C) or (E) then the 
implication
is that one prefers the balance of (B) or (D) or (F).  We'll have to
see if a consensus emerges either way on that balance question.

Ran