On Mar 17, 2008, at 9:14 AM, Stewart Bryant wrote: > Isn't one of the roles of the liaisons to ensure that due process is > followed to the extent required by the body they represent, and to > give > advanced notice when the choice of candidate is likely to be > unacceptable to their body? Yes, and it's stated somewhat redundantly in S. 7 of RFC 3777, but if there are issues with process the liaison should address them first with the chair, and if to no avail, invoke dispute resolution. If I were liaison and believed there were ANY process issues that couldn't be resolved with the chair, I'd be reluctant to provide any slate to my confirming body. I.e., as IAB liaison this year I had no problem providing the NomCom's IESG slate to the IAB for confirmation. This should serve as a testament that I believe process was followed and properly executed by the NomCom. However, this is orthogonal of the IAB's consideration of that slate as confirming body, which as an insider there I can assure you is something they take far more seriously than I'd ever previously thought, which I believe to be a good thing. I believe the crux of the issue here is indeed what the role of the confirming body is. IMO, the current model ensures the NomCom feels second-guessed, which I assure you weighs heavy on NomCom members after an extraordinary amount of work. And the confirming bodies must take the confirmation process seriously, and pushback from the NomCom seems unreasonable. I've seen this from all perspectives, and I'm not sure where the right balance is. The dispute resolution this year is a symptom of a larger issue, IMO. Beyond that, my personal opinion is that both the NomCom and the IAB were acting in good faith this year, and it's unfortunate that the IETF NomCom framework is clouding the product of that work. It is clear that it needs to be readdressed. -danny _______________________________________________ IETF mailing list IETF@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf