G'day,
On 3/13/2013 2:27 PM, 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.
{ At the end of this message is a proposed revision to the above draft.
It synthesizes the input from messages posted about this on the IETF
list. Between here and that text I respond to those postings. /d }
There have been a number of comments on this draft text proposal:
On 3/13/2013 2:45 PM, Melinda Shore wrote:
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.
The role and authority/power of the IAB in this process is already
defined elsewhere in the document. It (carefully) does not deal with
the criteria or other details that the IAB might focus on when raising a
concern or, ultimately, refusing to confirm. Nothing in the proposed
text pertains to the confirming body; so there doesn't seem to be a need
to add more, potentially confusing, text on the topic.
On 3/13/2013 3:05 PM, Spencer Dawkins wrote:
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.
oops. Yeah, I got the sequencing wrong. Below the text is revised to
remove all sense of timing, such as removing "then"; so while the set of
sentences is ordered, no step is phrased as related to another. Nomcoms
are entirely competent to figure out the sequence themselves, IMO. Good
catch. Thanks.
On 3/13/2013 2:46 PM, Scott Brim wrote:
> I'm not fine with your use of "requirements". The thing is, there are
> many "soft" requirements, i.e. the nomcom has a number considerations
> that are important, but it must make tradeoffs. Most alleged
> requirements are not hard.
>
> You could change "requirements" to "criteria".
The irony is that I'm also a critic of the word but had convinced myself
that it worked here; however your point is of course correct and I
prefer criteria, too.
On 3/13/2013 2:51 PM, Michael StJohns wrote:
Can the nomcom waive or otherwise ignore "objective" criteria such as
"must have been a working group chair"? (and lest someone claim that
Can? Of course? Must? Probably not. The existing philosophy for this
controlling document is to leave internal processes internal. In spite
of its risk, I'm a fan of keeping this document at its current level of
granularity.
One might imagine a paper that offers thoughts on the internals of a
Nomcom, by way of providing opinions, expertise, etc. Clinical guidance
can always be helpful...
And I'd still leave "understanding" rather than "determination" in
I hope the switch to "criteria" assuages your concern. The reason I
think a tone of firmness about the criteria -- rather than something
softer like 'understanding' is that the Nomcom isn't just chatting and
offering an opinion. It is making decision, based on these attributes
and the more clear it is about them, the more clear it and the rest of
us will be in dealing with the list.
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.
Actually, the draft text imposes no such constraint on Nomcom's
determination of the criteria, and I intentionally refrained from even
implying such a constraint. To require anything like the constraint you
suggest is to give the creator of the input requirements control over
Nomcom's criteria.
I understand the basic purpose of our current exercise as being
assignment of authority over the job description to Nomcom, not the body
for which the position is being selection.
I think all this matches where your brief follow-on sub-thread went.
On 3/13/2013 3:29 PM, Michael StJohns wrote:
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.
While your rationale strikes me as entirely reasonable, I think that the
pragmatics of how nomcom's work -- as well as the nature of interactions
with confirming bodies -- doesn't.
Although Nomcoms try to do things as a reasonable sequence, the nature
of their composition and development means they keep making adjustments
along the way, including (re-)negotiating amongst itself how it will use
criteria and what criteria it might focus on.
On 3/13/2013 9:07 PM, John Leslie wrote:
> 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. ;^)
Harumph! It doesn't wander. It moves with dedicated purpose...
> These are separable, and deserve to be distinguished from each
other.
What text you are proposing as an alternative?
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"
see above.
>> 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>.
Again, there is a range range of important procedural detail that the
existing does not provide. I'm in the camp that thinks that's
appropriate. We haven't had a problem with the lack of formal
specification for those details. Let's not fix something that's been
working well.
On 3/15/2013 12:47 PM, James Galvin wrote:
The choice of the phrase "understanding of the IETF community's
consensus" is deliberately ambiguous.
As I suggested, the problem isn't just ambiguity. This text contains
two fundamental errors. The first is that there is an IETF community
consensus on the relevant job criteria. The second is that a Nomcom
knows it or can find it out.
One can certainly imagine a separate process -- prior to, and
independent of -- Nomcom, for getting the community to standardize the
job requirements/criteria. I doubt such an effort would be productive.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Revised draft text:
2. The nominating committee determines the criteria for the
job, synthesizing the desires expressed by the IAB, IESG or
IAOC (as appropriate), desires express by the community, and
the nominating committee's own assessment; it informs the
community and candidates of these determined criteria; it
advises each confirming body of its respective candidates;
the nominating committee shall provide the confirming body
with supporting materials that cover its selections,
including the final version of criteria that the nominating
committee used when making its selections.
Hums and further comments are eagerly sought...
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net