Re: IESG Issue 2

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

    Date:        Mon, 13 Oct 2003 10:36:44 -0400
    From:        Michael StJohns <mstjohns@mindspring.com>
    Message-ID:  <6.0.0.20.2.20031013101249.0356a430@pop.mindspring.com>

  | 1) No problem, both the old and new slots were advertised and the candidate 
  | vacates the old slot when the new appointee takes office.

Yes, that one is a non-issue.

  | 2) Not much of a problem as long as the position (E.g. internet AD) was 
  | advertised - all you're doing is filling 2 copies of the position instead 
  | of one

You're assuming that all areas have 2 ADs.   They haven't in the past, and
most probably won't again.   [Actually, I see that you actually weren't when
I read further, you were just treating this as a special case, but allow me
to rant anyway, as I typed all this already...]

To take a most extreme example, suppose that in a year where the IETF
chair position (the general AD if you like) is not intended to be
re-nominated, and assume that the nomcom decides that the current incumbent
as IETF chair would be better placed as the (or an) AD for the foobar area
(or on the IAB).  Then the proceed to select someone else as IETF chair,
a position that wasn't supposed to be open.

This is the case that the rules really need to catch - make sure this is
spelled out clearly, and then just apply the same rule to all the other cases
and everything will be fine.  I see no need for special case rules, or
at least not until we have experience with a general rule causing problems.

In any case, I am not sure that I agree that "just filling two positions"
(without telling anyone - which the confidentiality rules require) is no
different than filling one slot.   When giving advice about who would be
a suitable candidate, one of the criteria needs to be how well they would
work with the sitting AD as joint managers of the area.   If that sitting AD
isn't to remain sitting at all, this could radically alter recommendations
for suitable people.   The same is true for people being willing to accept
nomination "Work with X, you must be joking" or "Yes, X is the other AD,
always wanted to work with X, so because of that I'll say yes".

  | 3) This one is problematic and differs from 2 in that there is no absolute 
  | prohibition on someone being on both the IESG and the IAB.  With 2, the old 
  | position becomes vacant upon the AD accepting appointment to the new 
  | position and having the IAB approve it.

Really?   Why?   Where's the prohibition on an AD being an AD for two areas?

While there might not be an absolute prohibition on anyone serving on the
IAB and IESG at the same time explicitly stated anywhere (under current rules)
there hasn't ever been an instance where (perhaps for more than a week or so
anyway) it has ever happened.   So there's a reasonable amount of "common law"
(or precedent) for that.  On the other hand, there have been several instances
through history where an AD has been AD for multiple areas (sometimes for 
years).  They may look like special cases, but they happened anyway (remember
also that the IESG defines its own structure - and is able to shuffle people
between areas, even close areas and create others, whenever it wants).

The IESG case is actually the harder one of the two, though I can't really
see much justification for treating "moving sitting IESG member to IAB" and
"moving sitting IESG member to another AD slot" as different in any way at all.

  | Fix:  If the type of position (e.g. security AD) was advertised, the Nomcom 
  | can take action to fill it from the set of candidates it already has for 
  | that type of slot.

I don't think that should be done.

  | If the type of position was not advertised (e.g. 
  | because it was an off year and there was only one of that type) it must not 
  | take action to fill it and it must treat it as a mid-term 
  | vacancy.  However, once the candidate has accepted appointment to the new 
  | position and once the IAB has confirmed them and the announcement has been 
  | made, the Nomcom can immediately begin the process of selection for 
  | replacement.

All that part seems fine to me, but I'd apply it in all cases, delete the
leading "if".   I certainly see no reason to delay starting the replacement
search until after the positions have been swapped around - the need for
any delay at all is just because of the confidentiality requirements (and
because until all this has happened, there's no guarantee that the move
will in fact happen).

kre