On Thu, Mar 7, 2013 at 1:56 PM, Joel M. Halpern <jmh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Do note that while the nomcom is free to interpret the job requirements,
> they are NOT free to redefine the job. If asked for a Security AD, they can
> not appoint an extra applications AD. Even i the community input strongly
> led them to conclude that is what is needed.
>
This is explicit in RFC 3777:
"The nominating committee does not select the open positions to be
reviewed; it is instructed as to which positions to review."
It cannot decide not to review a specific position ("We're not reviewing the IAB
this year") nor can it decide to review a different AD set ("We're
going to re-do last
year's slots as well as this years"). So I guess we agree, but it's not really
to the point being made.
> One of the interesting things is that the nomcom does not in practice have a
> way to tell the community exactly what it decided the job requirements are.
Why is the Nomcom report not a mechanism to do this?
regards,
Ted Hardie