Re: IESG Issue 2 (publication of requirements)

[Harald Tveit Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>]

I disagree with Mike.

I think publication of the requirements at call for nomination time is 
useful. The IESG and IAB is responsible for wording them; once they're 
published, Nomcom has no responsibility for them, and the IESG & IAB can't 
call them back - I think that's good.

I support the suggested resolution.

--On 6. november 2003 11:44 -0500 Michael StJohns <mstjohns@mindspring.com> 
wrote:

> > DISCUSSION SO FAR:   5 comments
> >
> > The information should not be confidential.  It should be published.
>
> Specifically, it should be published as part of the announcement
> information, rather than as part of the solicitation for nominations.
>
> Rationale:  While the information is important for the IETF participants
> to understand the choices, publishing it prior to the nomcom making a
> choice may result less than useful public discussion of that criteria and
> thrashing (as in "page thrashing") of the process.
>
>
> > Recommended wording change submitted on the list:
> >
> > OLD NEW:
> >
> >    14.  The Chair obtains the list of IESG and IAB positions to be
> >           reviewed and a description of the desirable qualifications for
> >
> >         those positions. This information is announced, along with a
> >         solicitation for names of volunteers from the IETF community
> >         willing to serve on the nominating committee.
> >
> > NEW:
> >
> >    14.  The Chair obtains the list of IESG and IAB positions to be
> >           reviewed and a description of the desirable qualifications for
> >            those positions. This information is announced on
> >            ietf-announce@ietf.org, along with a solicitation for names
> >            of volunteers from the IETF community willing to serve on
> >           the nominating committee.
> >
> >
> > Is this wording acceptable?
>
> No - see above.