Re: Consensus on the responsibility for qualifications? (Was: Re: Nomcom is responsible for IESG qualifications)

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

 



At 02:27 PM 3/13/2013, Dave Crocker wrote:
>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/


Can the nomcom waive or otherwise ignore "objective" criteria such as "must have been a working group chair"?  (and lest someone claim that "must have congestion control expertise" is also an objective criteria - I will point out that the evaluation of that claim involves subjective judgement and the result can vary from evaluator to evaluator, as opposed to "must have been employed in a job which included "congestion control" in the job description for a minimum of 5 years is objective.).

And I'd still leave "understanding" rather than "determination"  in your re-phrasing to make it clear that the requirements must derive from the externally stated desires, wishes and hopes, rather than created whole cloth from the Nomcom's preferences.

Mike





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