The TSV discussion and its spinoffs (was: Re: Nomcom is responsible for IESG qualifications)

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 




--On Friday, March 08, 2013 18:57 -0500 Jari Arkko
<jari.arkko@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> FWIW, I do believe that noncoms may decide for themselves what
> the final requirements are for specific positions. This is
> true in this case as well. The IESG has a role to send the
> starting point for these requirements, the desired expertise.
> (But it is possible that the nomcom does not see a need to
> change what the input said, which may help explain what Dave
> has seen.)
>...

I agree with Jari's note (the part I didn't quote as well), but
want to make three suggestions (mixing threads a bit):

(1) A continued debate about the limits to job descriptions and
suggestions or mandates about requirements doesn't help anyone
right now.  I can't imagine the current nomcom feels that it is
so lacking in input on the subject that another note on the IETF
list will help.  And, if the community believes that there is
either ambiguity or that the current rules, whatever they are,
are wrong, I hope everyone agrees that the way to address that
is to create a draft with clarified or different rules and see
if it gets community consensus.

(2) I can't and won't speak to what has happened in any
particular year, but at least part of the IAB's shift to "give
us a slate" is a consequence of Nomcoms choosing to move people
between areas.   That can create a race condition among
candidates qualified for any given position.  To the extent to
which the IAB has concerns about balances of various sorts on
the IESG -- such as overrepresentation of one particular country
or various diversity issues-- there is no plausible way to look
at those questions without doing so on a slate.  The
specifications don't prevent the IAB from considering those
criteria.  As with the above, it is probably too late for this
year and those who feel that the IAB should be more constrained
(or who feel the the options should be clarified so they don't
come up again) should, IMO, probably be writing drafts rather
than seeing if their positions become more persuasive if
repeated enough times.

(3) People agree to be candidates for various positions with a
certain expectation of privacy based on the rules in effect when
the call for candidates is issued.  The community can to change
the rules again.  Doing so should come with the understanding
that such changes may change the profile of those who are
willing to volunteer.  But changing the rules mid-process,
whether by asking people to disclose questionnaires (and
inevitably putting those who don't to explain why not, whether
the comments in them are formally confidential or not) or
getting into public discussions about qualifications for a
position while that position is under active consideration by
the Nomcom (not because the qualifications should be an issue
but because, once the candidate list is known, comments about
qualifications are comments about candidates unless everyone is
hyper-careful about what they say, how they respond to what
others say, and what inferences they draw.  It may be that we
should change our process to allow (or require) Nomcoms to
conduct public fact-finding discussions about qualifications and
other considerations before issuing the formal call for
candidates.   At the risk of repeating myself, those who like
either that idea or changing (or clarifying) the confidentiality
rules should probably be writing drafts.

thanks,
   john




[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]