Dave, What you say is reasonable, but may not be practically applicable. For example, with folks like yourself who know a great deal about the inner workings of IESG, IAB, etc. - as well as knowing many (if not most) of the people who might reasonably be expected to show up as nominees - it is quite possible to argue the merit of a particular nomination choice independent of the specific requirements handed to the NomCom. Does that mean that the result would be that the NomCom would tell the IAB, IESG, etc. that they decided to "change" the requirements? I think not. On the other hand, because of the selection process we use for the NomCom, it would be quite possible to end up with a NomCom that has nobody, among the voting members, that has a degree of understanding similar to your own. In that case, giving anyone on such a NomCom the impression that they have any responsibility to review and perhaps alter the requirements given to them would possibly be a serious error. One of the factors that can lead to different interpretations of the guidelines RFC(s) for NomComs is the amount of experience the members collectively bring to the table. In a very real way, the potential for different interpretations that exists right now is a feature - in this respect - rather than a bug. With the current possibility for interpretation, an experienced NomCom can do better, while a less experienced NomCom can do the best they can with what they are given, and can get on their own - without feeling compelled to try to step outside of the limits of their experience. I know that this may grate on some people's sense of how things should be done. In no small part, this is likely because of a concern that some folks may take advantage of such loop-holes to push forward an agenda of their own. I think that concern is a bogey man, given the fact that the current NomCom selection process tends to select sincere and conscientious people and that there are a host of balances and correction points in the NomCom process. -- Eric -----Original Message----- From: ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx [mailto:ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Dave Crocker Sent: Friday, March 08, 2013 10:11 PM To: Jari Arkko Cc: ietf@xxxxxxxx Subject: Re: Nomcom is responsible for IESG qualifications On 3/8/2013 3:57 PM, Jari Arkko 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.) No. I've been quite explicit about the point I was making and there seems to be a pattern in this thread of different people re-interpreting it to mean something else. Of the 4 nomcoms I've been on, more than one felt that the criteria should be revised. NONE OF THEM BELIEVED THEY HAD THE AUTHORITY. "Not having the authority" is fundamentally different from "not seeing a need to change". From one Nomcom to the next, the sense of authority and obligation for a Nomcom should be consistent. What a Nomcom does with that will (and probably should) vary enormously, of course, but they should all work from a common understanding of their charter. > Also, while the nomcom decides the requirements for specific > positions, Again: that's nice, simple, clear language, but it does not reflect what some Nomcoms have believed was their charter. We should revise the language to make authorities and responsibilities far more clear. As I explained in an earlier posting, I see a reasonable reading of the current text as /not/ assigning the authority to the Nomcom. It's fine that other read it differently, but that's not the point. It should require really creative mis-reading to get an interpretation that differs from everyone else. d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net