On Mar 13, 2013, at 11:49 AM, Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Dave, all, > > We talked about this in the Monday plenary. Obviously people have read or understood the situation in different ways. But that should not stop us from reaching a common understanding of the situation now that we realised we had read it differently. You indicated that you thought you saw consensus emerge on the list about the way that qualifications are determined. I am now attempting to see if the list believes this is how it should work: > > The bodies (IESG, IAB, …) themselves provide desirable qualifications to the nominating committee. The nominating committee may, however, itself determine what the final requirements are for specific positions. As a part of this effort, the nominating committee needs to evaluate the qualifications that it got in critical light, as well as to call for input from the community on the qualifications. > > However, the body for which persons are being searched is still responsible on how the work is organised. For instance, the IESG determines what areas there are, and therefore, what and how many area directors are needed. > > (And again, this mail is just about a process clarification, not something that should affect current nomcom process, this has nothing to do with selecting specific persons this year, etc.) > > Jari My understanding, at least in the case of the TSV AD in this event, is that - the IESG proposed qualifications they thought applied - the nomcom may or may not have adjusted them, looked at the pool of candidates that were willing to serve, and then picked the one they thought was best qualified among those available - the confirming body (in this case the IAB) then rejected the candidate. I think that makes the confirming body the one that, in the final analysis, sets the qualifications required. And BTW, I have to believe that the nomcom did everything in its power to find someone qualified; that brings me to the conclusion that it is quite possible for the confirming body to require a specification for a person that doesn't exist in the pool of available candidates.