Re: IESG Issue 2 (publication of requirements)

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

--On 7. november 2003 10:24 +1100 Geoff Huston <gih@telstra.net> wrote:

> A countervailing view is that the generation of the current
> requirements in the IETF leadership and the associated
> desireable qualifications for the vacant positions
> rests with the Nomcom as an outcome of its interactions with
> the community during its consultative process.

I agree, and disagree that it is countervailing :-)
The nomcom is responsible for using *its* judgment.
But I think that what the IESG and IAB tells them should be public, and 
made public at the time it's written, not 6 months later.

> At the very least the Nomcom should not interpret any such
> statement of 'desireable qualifications" as being a fixed constraint
> placed upon the process, and the Nomcom should be able to
> refine such an input to match what it is hearing from the broader
> IETF community as to current requirements and associated
> desireable qualifications for vacant positions.

Yes.
And the results of that refinement need to be reflected in the "testament" 
at the end of the process.