On 3/13/2013 1:49 PM, Jari Arkko wrote:
The bodies (IESG, IAB, …) themselves provide desirable qualifications
to the nominating committee. The nominating committee may, however,
itself determine what the final requirements are for specific
positions. As a part of this effort, the nominating committee needs
to evaluate the qualifications that it got in critical light, as well
as to call for input from the community on the qualifications.
However, the body for which persons are being searched is still
responsible on how the work is organised. For instance, the IESG
determines what areas there are, and therefore, what and how many
area directors are needed.
Jari.
Thanks for sending this.
I think you've correctly described the dominant interpretation that
developed in the discussion.
By way of testing whether I understand your text, here is a re-coding,
meant to be simplistic and procedural:
1. The body (and/or the controlling documents for the body) defines
its slots (positions). Nomcom fills the slots.
2. The body offers its view of the requirements for these positions,
but these are merely advisory to the work of Nomcom
3. The community comments on the requirements for positions.
4. Nomcom makes its own decision about the criteria it will use for
selecting nominees; as such, it really is defining the /actual/
requirements for positions.
The task I think I agreed to, on Monday, was to formulate language
changes to RFC 3777, to make this more clear.
Herewith:
7. Unless otherwise specified, the advice and consent model is used
...
2. The nominating committee selects candidates based on its
understanding of the IETF community's consensus of the
qualifications required and advises each confirming body of its
respective candidates.
In practical terms, Nomcom is not in a position to conduct an actual
(formal) community-wide consensus process. It can solicit comments and
it can gauge those comments. But to characterize this sequence as an
"understanding of the IETF community's consensus" is unrealistic and
counterproductive, in my view.
So I suggest:
2. The nominating committee selects candidates based on its
determination of the requirements for the job, synthesized
from the desires expressed by the IAB, IESG or IAOC (as
appropriate), desires express by the community, and from the
nominating committee's own assessment; it then advises each
confirming body of its respective candidates; the nominating
committee shall provide supporting materials that cover its
selections, including the final version of requirements that
the nominating committee used when making its selections;
these requirements shall be made public after nominees are
confirmed.
Comments?
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net