Re: WG Last Call

[Donald Eastlake 3rd <dee3@torque.pothole.com>]

On Wed, 2 Jul 2003, Michael StJohns wrote:

> Date: Wed, 02 Jul 2003 16:46:26 -0400
> From: Michael StJohns <mstjohns@mindspring.com>
> Subject: Re: WG Last Call
> 
> 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).

I agree that "in communication" is a misleading description of the CB 
deliberations. But see below...

> 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.

I also agree that there is no reason for any requirement that the CB
communicate with the nomcom.  But I can't see any reason to stop the
nomcom, or any members thereof, or indeed any members of the IETF
community from saying pretty much anything they want to a CB or to any
member of the CB. Whatever benefit you see in the weird and unnatual
isolation of CBs escapes me. The members of the CB are leaders immersed
in the IETF community and all members of that community should feel free
to communicate to them, including opinions that are favorable or
unfavorable to the selection of individuals. The sort of draconian
restriction on freedom of speech you propose seems to me entirely
unjustified.

> 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.

I generally agree except that I see no reason why a week or a day or ten
minutes after their initial message to the CB, in the unlikely event the
nomcom wants to send one or more additional messages, there is no reason
to prohibit this.

Thanks,
Donald
======================================================================
 Donald E. Eastlake 3rd                       dee3@torque.pothole.com
 155 Beaver Street              +1-508-634-2066(h) +1-508-851-8280(w)
 Milford, MA 01757 USA                   Donald.Eastlake@motorola.com