Subject: Re: DISCUSSION: rejecting candidates

From: Mark Allman <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2002 12:34:09 -0400

> We disagree. I explicitly think the approving body needs the
> authority to simply reject a candidate, as it does
> today. Otherwise, it is toothless.
> 
> Since we disagree, let's shut up and hear from other people.

I tend to agree with Dave.  I see no reason why the confirming
bodies should say "no" for any reason except process problems.  They
do not do the research the nomcom does, they do not have the time
nomcom does and we (globally) should not expend the energy to
conduct two seperate analyses.

But,

Brian- Can you sketch a hypothetical scenario where you believe it
would be appropriate (for example) for the IAB to reject an AD
choice made by the nomcom -- given that everyone is comfortable with
the process followed by the nomcom?  

Maybe something specific would illustrate the point you're making to
some of who do not Get It.

allman

--
Mark Allman -- BBN/NASA GRC -- http://roland.grc.nasa.gov/~mallman/

---

From: Marshall Rose <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2002 10:28:40 -0700

> some of who do not Get It.

i guess my perspective is that "i don't need to get it".

apologies in advance for repeating part of a message i sent three weeks ago:

>     some have argued that when the confirming body rejects a candidate,
>     then this should be treated as the final say on the matter. this
>     perspective isn't consistent with the philosophy of checks and
>     balances. if the confirming body rejects someone, the nomcom should
>     be free to re-think their choice, and, if they feel strongly about
>     it, then to submit the name again. if this leads to a deadlock, then
>     the position doesn't get filled -- and frankly, i think that's just
>     fine. if both sides feel so strongly on the issue that they can't
>     agree, then the position should go unfilled until they can
>     agree. and if that means the position goes unfilled for a year, i
>     applaud them both for acting on the strength of their
>     convictions. (of course, we all know that it's unlikely to go on for
>     a year. maybe a month or two. and if it is an entire year, that's
>     okay, the iesg and iab have operated at less than full strength
>     before.)

frankly, i don't want to get into why the confirming body feels they have to say no. the process doesn't require that. all that's required is that both the nomcom and confirming body ultimately agree on a candidate.

both groups should act on their informed beliefs, and the fact that both groups may use different processes/inputs is a good thing...

/mtr

---

From: "Joel M. Halpern" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2002 13:39:50 -0400

As far as I can tell, it is important that the review committee be able to 
review for more than just "process" problems.  Let me provide one purely 
hypothetical example.
We have a ~pseudo-randomly~ selected nomcomm.  Many of the folks on the 
nomcomm have agendas.  (That's inevitable.)  It is possible to get a random 
alignment such that enough of the nomcom shares an agenda and it dominates 
the picture.  If they felt that the IESG needed to be shaken up, or the IAB 
needed to all share some political / economic agenda, or otherwise choose 
for additional reasons, the nomcom members are clearly capable of doing so 
while complying with the process.  In fact, I would not want a set of rules 
that made this impossible.  It is necessary for the review bodies to be 
able to say "no, those people are a bad idea."
Another hypothetical example is a case where the nomcom in collecting its 
information manages not to notice that there nominee clashes extremely 
badly with some sitting person whom he would have to work with.  Yes, this 
is something they should look for.  But they are human and good process 
does not ensure that all input is received and evaluated as one would 
like.  Mistakes get made.  It is important that the review body be able to 
apply judgement to the review.

I understand the concern that the review body can not and should not 
recapitulate the entire nomcom process.  But something strong than "process 
review" is necessary.

Yours,
Joel M. Halpern

At 12:34 PM 4/17/2002 -0400, Mark Allman wrote:

>----------------------------------------------------------------
>To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription
>manager: <http://lists.elistx.com/subscribe>

---

From: Randy Bush <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 18 Apr 2002 05:54:11 +0900

[ i do not disagree with your main point, but a social, not formal
  process, side comment ]

> badly with some sitting person whom he would have to work with.

imiho, this is a serious failure of the principal task of the iab/iesg
liaisons.  they are the ones who need to help/advise the nomcom on the
social effects within each of the two bodies.  i still see this whole
process as analogous to building management teams.

randy

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2002 14:14:38 -0700

At 05:54 AM 4/18/2002 +0900, Randy Bush wrote:
>i still see this whole

amen.

d/

----------
Dave Crocker  <mailto:[email-masked]>
Brandenburg InternetWorking  <http://www.brandenburg.com>
tel +1.408.246.8253;  fax +1.408.850.1850

---

From: Bob Hinden <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2002 16:58:43 -0700

Randy,

>process as analogous to building management teams.

It is not analogous to building management teams.  It is building a 
management team!  Especially in the case of the IESG.

Bob