>>>>> "Dave" == Dave Crocker <dhc@xxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
Dave> I agree it's not hairsplitting and that it is vitally
Dave> important.
Dave> Unfortunately, Sam, your model is simply wrong.
Dave> The IESG defines the job requirements. The Nomcom selects
Dave> according to those criteria.
Dave> I'm been in a number of Nomcom's that wished for some
Dave> flexibility concerning job requirements, but each of these
Dave> Nomcoms was very clear that it did not have a mandate to make
Dave> changes in job criteria.
When you say my model is wrong, I think you're talking about the model
in practice. I wrote a note last night explaining why I believe my
model is right according to RFC 3777.
If you think I got that wrong please ignore the rest of this message and
explain what I missed.
If you are saying that the nomcom feels pressure to take the desired
expertise provided by the IESG and treat it as the required
qualification in RFC 3777, then I absolutely agree you're right, and
personally I consider that a significant problem.
Because I believe that's wrong, I've been working here to try and set
the expectation that we should be following the RFC 3777 model. I've
also been talking to the nomcom and IESg members about the issue.
It's a really serious problem. The nomcom I served on believe the IESg
got the desired expertise wrong in a number of ways. We wanted to ask
the community about the set of qualifications we planned on using. Our
nomcom was strong-willed enough that we were going to use our
qualifications if they were supported by community input. However we
got pushback from the IESG on circulating our text, so we just went
ahead and used a set of qualifications that no one (until the IAB) got
to see.
Ah joy!