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]

 



On 3/13/2013 1:45 PM, Melinda Shore wrote:
On 3/13/2013 10:27 AM, Dave Crocker wrote:
    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.

I think we need to acknowledge that the confirming body (IAB)
effectively has veto power over those criteria/requirements,
since it can reject candidates who were selected by evaluation
against those criteria.

Well, for what it's worth ... people willing to be considered would probably like to know what the description Nomcom uses really is, and so would people being asked to comment on willing nominees. As a member of one of the confirming bodies, I would like to know what Nomcom thinks the description is, when I'm considering candidates to confirm.

Spencer

p.s. For the brave souls who are still reading - my understanding of the process is that Nomcoms ask for feedback on willing nominees, and then get feedback on what the description should be as part of feedback on nominees. If you think nominees read position descriptions, Nomcoms might end up with willing nominees that more closely match the position description if the Nomcom collects feedback on the position description before providing it as part of a call for nominations.

I'm not suggesting two calls for feedback (one on the descriptions/needs of the position, and one on the willing nominees). But how you give potential nominees a the description they'll be considered against, without asking the community for feedback and then deciding what the position description is, and then asking for nominations, I couldn't say.


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