Re: WG Last Call

[Michael StJohns <mstjohns@mindspring.com>]

Speaking as myself..

Yes the bodies do communicate, but they do not make their decisions in 
communication with the Nominating committee.  Being "in communication with" 
implies an immediacy and constancy that is not appropriate.  "communicates 
with" if there is an issue, a requirement for more information, or a 
rejection and at the need or request of the CB is appropriate - but its the 
CBs option (except of course for the rejection).

There is and should be no requirement for the CB to communicate with the 
nomcom unless the CB desires more information.  The nomcom provides the 
candidate, it does not then get to provide any more input unless the CB 
desires it.  The nomcom does not get to try and sway, influence, cajole or 
otherwise contaminate the independence of the CBs deliberations.



The nomcom sends the nomination and supporting documentation.  The 
confirming bodies review that, ask questions if necessary, and then make 
their decision based on what they know at that point... they don't have a 
phone line open, the nomcom doesn't get a vote in the CB 
deliberations.  There isn't even a requirement that the CB ask questions of 
the nomcom.

The rest of this is all spelled out in the paragraphs below that 
clause.  Either remove the clause, or use Brian's restatement.

At 16:14 7/2/2003, James M Galvin wrote:
> Speaking as editor:
>
>
>
> On Wed, 2 Jul 2003, Michael StJohns wrote:
>
>     *sigh* The confirming bodies do NOT make their decisions "in
>     communication with the nominating committee" Delete that phrase from
>     the first clause and make it read
>
>     "The confirming bodies review their respective candidates and consent to
>     some, all, or none of the candidates."
>
> But they do communicate.  They receive supporting documentation and they
> are permitted to ask questions.  In fact, there is an expectation of
> communication.
>
> The "in communication with" was explicitly added to ensure that the
> NOMCOM and the confirming body do not have a wall between them.  To
> remove the phrase you suggest is, in my opinion as editor, not an
> editorial change.
>
> Jim
>
>
>
>     At 15:10 7/2/2003, James M Galvin wrote:
>     >Speaking as editor:
>     >
>     >
>     >The change to which you are referring was made in the body of that
>     >particular rule.  What Brian just did was notice that the rule itself
>     >was not changed.
>     >
>     >The complete rule now says: (from Section 3, Rule 7)
>     >
>     >
>     >        3.  The confirming bodies review their respective candidates 
> and,
>     >            in communication with the nominating committee, consent to
>     >            some, all, or none of the candidates.
>     >
>     >            The sitting IAB members review the IESG candidates.
>     >
>     >            The Internet Society Board of Trustees reviews the IAB
>     >            candidates.
>     >
>     >            The confirming bodies conduct their review using all
>     >            information and any means acceptable to them, including but
>     >            not limited to the supporting information provided by the
>     >            nominating committee, information known personally to 
> members
>     >            of the confirming bodies and shared within the confirming
>     >            body, the results of interactions within the confirming
>     >            bodies, and the confirming bodies interpretation of what is
>     >            in the best interests of the IETF community.
>     >
>     >            If all of the candidates are confirmed, the job of the
>     >            nominating committee with respect to those open positions is
>     >            complete.
>     >
>     >            If some or none of the candidates submitted to a confirming
>     >            body are confirmed, the confirming body should communicate
>     >            with the nominating committee both to explain the reason why
>     >            all the candidates were not confirmed and to understand the
>     >            nominating committee's rationale for its candidates.
>     >
>     >            The confirming body may reject individual candidates, in
>     >            which case the nominating committee must select alternate
>     >            candidates for the rejected candidates.
>     >
>     >            Any additional time required by the nominating committee
>     >            should not exceed its maximum time allotment.
>     >
>     >
>     >This is what I understood the desired change to be.