Howdy,
Some text in-line.
On Thu, Mar 7, 2013 at 12:31 PM, Dave Crocker <dhc@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On 3/6/2013 3:14 PM, Sam Hartman wrote:
>>
>> Jari, I could not disagree more. Evaluating community feedback on the
>> qualifications provided by the IESG is specifically the nomcom's
>> responsibility. It's quite clear the buck stops with the nomcom in RFC
>> 3777 not with the IESG.
>>
>> I shall quote the related sections of the RFc for you:
>>
>> The nominating committee will be given the title of the positions
>> to be reviewed and a brief summary of the desired expertise of the
>> candidate that is nominated to fill each position.
>
> ...
>>
>> 12. The nominating committee selects candidates based on its
>>
>> understanding of the IETF community's consensus of the
>> qualifications required to fill the open positions.
>
>
>
> Sam,
>
> Responding to this message of yours, from yesterday, based on the
> clarification you just sent...
>
> I understand that clarification to mean that you believe RFC 3777 authorizes
> Nomcom to formulate job requirements. Hence, you believe a Nomcom errs if
> it operates from the view that it /must/ treat the IESG's job descriptions
> as mandated by the IESG, rather than merely being advisory.
>
> Unfortunately I don't interpret RFC 3777 the way you do, or at least I think
> the current language permits the current operational model.
>
I agree that the current language permits the current operational model, because
it leaves it up to the NomCom to determine how to derive IETF
community consensus;
it can believe the IESG is right, as it does now.
But it is not required to do so by my reading of RFC 3777. And I
don't event think
that's the default. That is actually pretty much spelled out in section 12:
12. The nominating committee selects candidates based on its
understanding of the IETF community's consensus of the
qualifications required to fill the open positions.
The intent of this rule is to ensure that the nominating
committee consults with a broad base of the IETF community for
input to its deliberations. In particular, the nominating
committee must determine if the desired expertise for the open
positions matches its understanding of the qualifications desired
by the IETF community.
To summarize: the nominating committee selects candidates
based on *community consensus of the qualifications required*, and it should
consult *broadly* to determine if the desired expertise matches its
understanding.
And the document is quite clear that its intent is to get broad community input
rather than just the view of the incumbents.
That's a fairly long winded way of saying I think Sam is right, but
I'm afraid I'm
about to make it a bit longer. One of the reasons for retaining a NomCom
style selection rather than bootstrapping with it and then letting the bodies
self-select afterwards is that the incumbents' understanding of what's needed
can drift from the community's view. The NomCom is the volunteer body
charged with testing for that and reacting. Its view, not the
incumbents' views,
should be the deciding ones.
Note: I've served on confirming bodies, but not the NomCom, so I am not
speaking from personal experience.
regards,
Ted Hardie