Dave Crocker <dhc@xxxxxxxxxxxx> 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; I see several problems with this text: 1) It wanders from the current clear distinction between "desired expertise", determined by the body where the nominee will serve, and "IETF community's consensus of the qualifications required", determined by waving the right magic wand. ;^) These are separable, and deserve to be distinguished from each other. 2) The confirming body _does_ have a role here, which they frequently take seriously. IMHO, the confirming body has much better experience at determining "community consensus" than the NomCom -- but at the very least, it's a bad idea for them to be surprised by any change in the "desired expertise" at the point where names are presented to them. Thus: > 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; strikes me as too little, too late: the confirming body should learn of any relaxing (least of all changes!) to the "desired expertise" early in the process, and IMHO, should comment on or accept these changes. > these requirements shall be made public after nominees are > confirmed. This seems too vague. I'd suggest we consider listing actual "requirements" in a formal report posted to <ietf-announce>. (YMMV...) -- John Leslie <john@xxxxxxx>