At 02:57 PM 3/13/2013, Scott Brim wrote: >On 03/13/13 14:51, Michael StJohns allegedly wrote: >> 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"? > >The confirming body still has control. I think so too. Which then suggests that the requirements should be provided far in advance of the nominations, rather in conjunction with the nominations. I think that surprising the confirming body with the requirements at the last moment could tend to lead to further disruptions in the process. Mike