At 07:18 PM 3/16/2008, Dave Crocker wrote: >> I'm >> unsure how the confirming body confirms the candidate without also being >> apprised of this information. > > >This seems to go to the heart of a long-standing dilemma in the IETF: > > Is it the job of a reviewing body to pre-empt lengthy and diligent work or >is it the job of a reviewing body to the work was done diligently and competently? I think you're missing a "decide if" before "the work" in the second line? I think this is kind of a slanted (sorry) statement of the problem. I'd put it more like: "Is it the job of the reviewing body to make an independent decision on the candidates suitability, or is it the only job of the reviewing body to protect the process irrespective of the actual nominations?" >These are very different jobs. > >Whether Nomcom or a working group, a decision process over a long period of time >represents extensive research, deliberation, and balancing among trade-offs. >This is something that simply cannot be replicated by another person or body >spending a few days or even weeks on "review". The Nomcom has to winnow through a pile of candidates, discussion, gathering information, discarding and ultimately selecting the one person (or for IAB group of persons) that it is recommending for selection. That takes lots of time and effort. Taking the information which applies only to those candidates, reviewing it, and making a decision, hopefully takes less time given the appropriate documentation. Put another way, the Nomcom is a search committee, but the hiring authority resides in the confirming bodies. >If they are not replicating the decision process, they are doing something else. The rest of this message is sort of ignoring the whole "winnowing" process done by the Nomcom. The CBs don't repeat that, they can only act on the candidates provided to them. The CBs provide a check and balance, not the original research. Since I mostly don't agree with the premise the reviewing bodies are "repeating" the Nomcom's job if they consider candidates qualifications, I don't really have comments on the rest of the message. >As long as we have no consensus about the nature of the job to be done by a >reviewing body, we are going to suffer with its thinking can can reasonably >second-guess primary bodies. > >d/ >-- And on this we agree. Mike _______________________________________________ IETF mailing list IETF@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf