Re: IESG Issue 2 (publication of requirements)

[sob@harvard.edu (Scott Bradner)]

agree also - this is just the right idea and the text should
be tweaked to say:
	1/ the IESG/IAB generated criteria  should be made public
	   when they are sent to the nomcom
	2/ the nomcom uses this as input but can come up with its
	   own as it hears from the community
	3/ the nomcom should publish at the end what the
	   criteria  it used were 
Scott

------------------------------------------------------------
> >>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.
> 
> >>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!
>