--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