Re: IESG Issue 2 (publication of requirements)

[Michael StJohns <mstjohns@mindspring.com>]

At 07:14 PM 11/6/2003, Geoff Huston wrote:
> At 03:57 PM 6/11/2003 -0800, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
>
>
> > --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.
>
> fair enough - I can (and do) agree with this.


*sigh* If they're made public at the beginning, then one or more of the 
IETF will feel that they need to provide input into that set of 
requirements, then there will be a very large discussion and if even one of 
the comments was ignored or excluded (or appeared to be ignored or 
excluded), then the selection process will be appealed and we really don't 
want that.

The general input from the membership should come in through the Nomcom WG 
and the Nomcom and the Nomcom's interaction with the membership.  The 
IAB/IESG guidance should not be subject to public debate or modification 
(specifically because it is the IAB's and IESG's guidance and not the 
membership's) and I see no way short of keeping it confidential until the 
termination of the process to enforce this.

This in no way is meant to prevent the Nomcom from publishing criteria 
without attribution, but frankly I'm not sure they would want to risk the 
same interaction as above.


> > > 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.
>
>
> precisely!
>
>   Geoff

Yup....