Re: Alternative (H2)

[Robert Elz <kre@munnari.OZ.AU>]

    Date:        Sun, 25 May 2003 02:18:02 +0200
    From:        Harald Tveit Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>
    Message-ID:  <23630000.1053821882@askvoll.hjemme.alvestrand.no>

  | I have no problems with this version.
  | 
  | --On fredag, mai 23, 2003 09:19:47 -0400 RJ Atkinson 
  | <rja@extremenetworks.com> wrote:
  | 
  | > --------------------------------------------------------------------
  | > Delete the existing text in section 4, and replace with this:
  | >
  | >      4. The confirming body decides whether it confirms each candidate
  | >         using a confirmation decision rule chosen by the confirming body.
  | >
  | >         If a confirming body has no specific confirmation decision rule,
  | >         then confirming a given candidate should require at least one-half
  | >         of the Confirming Body's sitting members to agree to that
  | >         confirmation.
  | >
  | >         The decision may be made by conducting a formal vote, by asserting
  | >         consensus based on informal exchanges (e.g. email), or by any
  | >         other mechanism that is used to conduct the normal business
  | >         of the confirming body.
  | >
  | >         Regardless of which decision rule the confirming body uses, any
  | >         candidate that is not confirmed under that rule must be rejected.
  | >
  | >         The confirming body must make its decision within a reasonable
  | >         timeframe.   The results from the confirming body must be reported
  | >         promptly to the nominating committee.
  | > ------------------------------------------------------------------------

I haven't had time to read this list for ages, and am just catching up.
I think I have read all of this thread - and I think you're all attempting
to solve the wrong problem.

That is, Ran says that the IAB has deadlocked (the IAB's nature must have 
changed a lot since I was there...) and that that poses a problem for the
nomcom.

Fine - that should be fixed.

But the proposed solution is to start (even in this mild form) to tell the
confirming body how it should make its decision?

That's absurd.   It is only getting even slight credence because the
confirming body everyone is concentrating on is the IAB, and everyone
feels like they have the right to tell the IAB how it should function
(and perhaps they do - but that's part of the IAB charter revision/approval
process, not the nomcom process).

Christian pointed out how insane this is for the ISOC, the other confirming
body.

But take it one step further - assume that (sometime in some distant future
perhaps - however unlikely it seems) that the confirming body was to be
General Motors - are we proposing to tell them how they make a decision?
Or to make it even more clear, say the confirming body was to be the US
state department - would we be suggesting to them that they should hold a
vote (of whom?) to make a decision.

This is all simply wrong.   We ask the conforming body to make a decision.
If they say yes (as a body) or no (as a body) then that's fine, that's what
we asked for.   It matters to us not even slightly what method they used to
make that decision.   If they say nothing, no matter what the reason, we cannot,
as a solution for that attempt to force an answer from them.   Rather we need
a fallback decision should the conforming body not make one, as no matter
how much we try (using our rules) to force one out of them, they can always
just prevaricate.

So, I'd suggest that the text be more like

	4. The confirming body decides whether it confirms each candidate.
	   That decision must be made within a reasonable timeframe.
	   Failing a decision, the slate of candidates, or any candidate
	   not explicitly confirmed or rejected, will be considered to have
	   been PQRSed.

Whether PQRS is confirm or reject doesn't matter to me (it makes a difference
but isn't one I have concluded that one is better than the other).

This is all we need - if the confirming body chooses not to make a
decision, because of laziness, deadlock, or any other reason, the world
must go on, it cannot simply stall forever.

The mechanism by which a decision is made, if one is made, doesn't matter
(and how would anyone necessarily know whether 7 of 12 IAB members voted
yes, or whether 5 of the 7 who bothered to attend the meeting voted yes) ?

The only other issue is whether "reasonable timeframe" ought to be nailed
down more precisely (if it isn't already) - which I'd guess would be a good
idea.

kre