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]

 



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


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