Re: IESG Issue 2

[James M Galvin <galvin+ietf-nomcom@eListX.com>]

I agree with Joel.

As I understood the prior discussion, the goal was to permit the NOMCOM
to complete its job as expeditiously as possible.  As a practical matter
this meant setting out rules so the NOMCOM could be done by the First
IETF instead of having to invoke the mid-term vacancy rules and extend
its job for another month.  So, the document makes it okay for only the
NOMCOM to know about the additional vacancy and for it to work to fill
it as best it can without announcing the actual vacancy itself -- which
doesn't really exist until there's been a formal resignation so what
we're really talking about here is making the resignation public.

I should point out that currently the IESG has two ADs in all areas
except the General Area.  What this means is that in all cases except
the General Area the community already knows that every area has an open
slot.  Thus, the NOMCOM is already working with a pool of candidates for
every area except the General Area.

Personally, I'm not concerned about the General Area since it is already
a special case.

I'm not in favor of forcing the advertisement of a mid-term vacancy, or
more precisely for an AD to resign publically in hopes of being approved
for an alternate position.  I don't have a problem with the NOMCOM
filling two slots, one I didn't know about upfront.

I'm also more concerned that the result of trying to "fix" this edge
case will be that "poaching" will no longer be practiced, since I can
not imagine a NOMCOM already worn out from 4 months of work that is
going to agree to another month.  The NOMCOM job is hard enough and I am
comfortable with this level of discretion.

Jim




On Wed, 8 Oct 2003, Joel M. Halpern wrote:

    Date: Wed, 08 Oct 2003 10:21:13 -0400
    From: Joel M. Halpern <joel@stevecrocker.com>
    To: ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com
    Subject: Re: IESG Issue 2

    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