Re: Question 2

[Harald Tveit Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>]

Short version of this message, from Ran's summary:

- StJohns' proposal to delete current text, add (A) but with his
	editorial change to (A) that it applies if and only if the
       confirming
	body has not created a specific confirmation process for itself
	to use with nominees from IETF Nomcom.

I started editing this message below before reading Ran's latest summary, 
so it looks a bit out-of-context.
There's some specific suggestion for text in here, so I'll send the 
extended version. Take it as a friendly amendment to StJohns' - a proposal 
for the editorial change.

                Harald


--On 15. mai 2003 11:25 -0400 RJ Atkinson <rja@extremenetworks.com> wrote:

> On Thursday, May 15, 2003, at 11:08 America/Montreal, James M Galvin
> wrote:
> > And here is what I propose:
> >
> >        4.  The confirming bodies decide their consent according to a
> >            mechanism of their own choosing, which must ensure that at
> >            least one-half of the sitting members agree with the
> > 	        confirmation.
> >
> >            At least one-half of the sitting members of the confirming
> >            bodies must agree to confirm each individual candidate.  The
> >            agreement must be decided within a reasonable timeframe.
> >            Candidates that are not confirmed under this rule must be
> >            rejected and reported as such to the nominating committee.
> >
> > 	        The agreement may be decided by conducting a formal vote, by
> >            asserting consensus based on informal exchanges (email), or
> >            by whatever mechanism is used to conduct the normal business
> >            of the confirming body.
>
> I'm happy to accept this as a friendly amendment to (A).
> Are other folks who liked (A) comfortable with the above revision ?

As an alternate text to (A), I am happy with this.

As a final text, I am not; since I am happy with text that defaults the CB 
decision rule but not with text that dictates the CB decision rule, I 
believe the first sentence should read:

   4. The confirming bodies decide their consent according to a mechanism
      of their own choosing, which produces an explicit decision within
      the timeframe required by the nomcom process.
      If the confirming bodies have no such specific rule, the followin
      rule is expected to be followed:

Note: When it comes up in the IAB, as I'm sure it will, I intend to argue 
in that forum that the IAB should have a rule that says that a majority of 
the qualified IAB members must confirm a candidate, but that the IESG chair 
and any IAB member who is proposed for the IESG is disqualified, and that 
any IAB member who sees a serious conflict of interest may choose to 
disqualify him/herself.

I think this level of detail and interaction with the internal processes of 
the IAB is inappropriate for nomcom - but the discussion has shown that it 
needs to be decided.

In an extreme case, this could mean that the IESG slate is approved by a 
single person. And I think that should be allowed to happen if it needs to.

                     Harald