Agreeing with Brian's dislike of http://www.iab.org/documents/docs/2003-07-23-nomcom.html, it was drafted, as far as I know, before RFC 3777 was published. RFC 3777 defines the process, with the consensus of the IETF community as a whole. I suggest that the IAB at least review its requirements document within the process defined by RFC 3777. I think it would be more appropriate and more in keeping with RFC 3777 for the IAB to publish minimal or no a priori requirements, leaving to the Nomcom the responsibility for the provision of adequate documentation in support of its nominaions. As Brian writes, the IAB can ask for specific additional information in those cases where it finds that information is necessary to complete its due diligence. - Ralph On Mon, 17 Mar 2008, Brian E Carpenter wrote: > On 2008-03-17 14:16, Ralph Droms wrote: >> >> >> On Sun, 16 Mar 2008, Michael StJohns wrote: >>> [...] >>> Put another way, the Nomcom is a search committee, but the hiring >>> authority resides in the confirming bodies. >> >> Mike - I fundamentally and strongly disagree. In my opinoin, the Nomcom >> is the hiring committee; the confirming body is the oversight and sanity >> check body. The Nomcom is selected from the IETF as a whole to select the >> management for the IETF, who then serve at the pleasure of the IETF as a >> whole. The confirming bodies do not form a hierarchical management or >> hiring organization; rather, they perform a final check and review of the >> process. > > To put it very slightly otherwise, the nomcom is supposed to represent > the whole community in the process of appointing people - maybe it would > be better named as the "appointments committee". The confirming bodies > are supposed to provide a check that due process has been followed and > that the proposed appointees are suitable, but they are clearly doing > that as guardians of the process. > > I believe that it's appropriate for the confirming bodies to ask for > additional information if they have reason to doubt that due proces > has been followed or that some of the proposed appointees are suitable. > I agree that they are inside the confidentiality boundary, too, and > this should be made clear to all concerned. What I don't like about > http://www.iab.org/documents/docs/2003-07-23-nomcom.html > is that the materials are requested a priori, as if *every* NomCom > choice is suspect. I think these are questions that should only be > asked if the confirming body has specific reason to query a choice. > (With one exception: it is quite reasonable to request a resume or CV > a priori.) > > Brian > _______________________________________________ IETF mailing list IETF@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf