On 10/18/2013 7:47 AM, John C Klensin wrote:
But, again, the Nomcom can't fix this, at least for this year's
selections. And one thing that has prevented the job from
being trimmed back is resistance from sitting ADs (sometimes
public and vigorous and sometimes passive refusal to consider
procedural changes or discuss them with the community, but
nonetheless blocking resistance). I would support advising the
Nomcom that no one should be placed on, or returned to, the IESG
unless the Nomcom members were convinced that the candidates
considered reducing the size of the role both appropriate and a
high priority.
The IESG defines the job and the IESG 'operates' the model. So yes,
formally the IESG controls this issue.
However...
Nomcom can apply pretty much whatever criteria it wants to the selection
process and Nomcom has been know to have some private negotiations with
the IESG. Nothing as profound as the change we are suggesting, but still...
So yes, an example of how Nomcom might independently deal with the
current crisis is to announce a policy of looking for ADs who are
willing to work no more than X% and then making a point of selecting
such folk.
(Note that I'm saying something different from John. He's caling for
new folk who would "support" a change; I'm calling for new folk who are
firm that they won't do more than X%.)
It would be better for the IESG to take the initiative here and formally
and publicly re-define the job, but it has so far ignored such requests.
So Nomcom could start things towards that change on its own.
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net