Re: IESG Issue 2

["Joel M. Halpern" <joel@stevecrocker.com>]

While one may argue that the document should say that new IESG openings 
need to be "advertised", that is not what I understand it to currently say.

My understanding of the document and of the discussion in the working group 
is that we decided not to make moving people a major difficulty, and 
therefore decided to allow quasi-simultaneous filling of created openings.

My own reading and estimating of reactions is that if we declare that 
openings that are created by moving people must be publicly vacated, 
solicited, and filled then we are essentially telling the nomcom not to 
move people around.  Because no nomcom is going to want to make that much 
extra work for itself.
If we want to make moving people an emergency maneuver, we can.  I 
personally do not want to make such a change to the accepted practice.

Yours,
Joel M. Halpern

At 09:10 PM 10/8/2003 +0700, Robert Elz wrote:
>     Date:        Wed, 08 Oct 2003 15:36:39 +0200
>     From:        Brian E Carpenter <brc@zurich.ibm.com>
>     Message-ID:  <3F8412E7.EC8B4026@zurich.ibm.com>
>
>   | I think Scott is correct that there is an asymmetry.
>
> I think there could be, but I don't see any reason that it needs to be so.
>
>   | An IAB member moving to an IESG position simply increases the number
>   | of identical IAB slots to fill. The process should not require a new
>   | call for nominees.
>
> Perhaps, but filling that last (new) open IAB position is hardly
> critical to anything - the IAB would manage just fine with one less
> member for a month or two.   I would not create a special case just
> to avoid that.
>
>   | What is described in the draft is appropriate.
>
> You're assuming that what the draft says is what it was claimed to
> say.   I disagree with that, I believe that if you read it carefully
> you'll find it says nothing of the kind.
>
>   | An IESG member moving to the IAB creates an unannounced specific 
> vacancy in
>   | the IESG. The process should require a new call for nominees.
>
> yes, absolutely, and that's what I think the draft now assumes.   Perhaps
> it could be made clearer that this is what it is saying, but I believe that
> is what is already there.
>
> Given that, while I have no problem with clarifying text, I certainly would
> not be adding special text to allow something different just so the IAB can
> have an extra member a little quicker.
>
> kre
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription
> manager: <http://lists.elistx.com/subscribe>