Subject: Re: DISCUSSION: rejecting candidates

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 03 Apr 2002 16:26:44 +0200

Harald Alvestrand wrote:
> 
> --On fredag, mars 29, 2002 13:53:53 -0500 "Joel M. Halpern"
> <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> > While I am not sure it can be achieved, I agree strongly with Avri's goal
> > of enabling the approval bodies to say no without exploding the entire
> > process.
> >
> > One step that may help is to change the text that says the whole slate is
> > approved or rejected so as to allow for specific rejection.
> 
> well, it doesn't say that in 2727:
> 
>    c. The sitting IAB members review the IESG candidates, consenting to
>       some, all, or none.
> 
> ....
> 
>    d. The Internet Society Board of Trustees reviews the IAB candidates,
>       consenting to some, all, or none.
> 
Exactly. I think we need to adjust the timing to give NomCom enough
time to identify a replacement candidate - that is the practical
problem today.

> the problem is that even rejecting one candidate can be considered "going
> nuclear".

When I think about it, extra time would make this less of a problem. The timing
today is very tight and a rejection would create a real panic, just when the
I-Ds are raining down on us by the hundreds.

    Brian

> 
> BTW, combating the "nomcom is a black box" feeling that Brian reports may
> be one argument in favour of having an ISOC Board liaison on the Nomcom.
> 
>                  Harald

---

From: Donald Eastlake 3rd <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2002 23:20:56 -0400 (EDT)

Most of the nomcoms I have been involved with have assumed that the
confirming body might say "no" or their selected person withdraw at the
last minute and have had a back up available in all cases except for
very hard to fill IESG positions.

It would be reasonable to add a paragraph to recommend this practice.

A rule saying that if someone is rejected they can't be resubmitted is
just useless extra baggage. If someone were rejected, either the nomcom
overlooked something (and will be suitably corrected by the negative
feedback from the confirming body and submit someone else) or the nomcom
is wedged (at least from the point of view of the confirming body, which
is what is important here). If people are at loggerheads, the nomcom can
just refuse to submit anyone until the confirming body withdraws their
rejection. See other comments below...

On Wed, 3 Apr 2002, Brian E Carpenter wrote:

> Date: Wed, 03 Apr 2002 16:26:44 +0200
> From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
> To: Harald Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
> Cc: Joel M. Halpern <[email-masked]>,
>      ietf-nomcom <[email-masked]>
> Subject: Re: DISCUSSION: rejecting candidates
>
> Harald Alvestrand wrote:
> >

The normal process of evaluation and ranking of possibilities tends to
automatically lead to their being a second and third choice. It may be
necessary to switch for other reasons than rejection. When I was nomcom
chair, there were two persons who were final choices and when I went
back for their final written confirmation that they had the time and
were willing, if confirmed, to act in the interests of the Internet
community, they backed out (due to time availability in both cases).

Sure, a rejection would cause some scrambling, like a withdrawl, but
except in the case of a hard to fill IESG position, where the second
place possibility might not be good enought, it shouldn't be that bad.

> I-Ds are raining down on us by the hundreds.

Work expands to fill the available time.

Donald

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2002 11:40:08 +0200

Donald Eastlake 3rd wrote:
...
> Work expands to fill the available time.

I really don't think that's fair comment. The people likely to be involved
in NomCom and in one of the approving bodies (the IAB) are more or less
by definition people with a strong commitment to IETF participation, which
in my experience means that in the last 3 weeks before a meeting, one needs
to study several tens of complicated drafts as well as doing a day job.
It really is the worst moment of all to be forced to prioritize tricky
personnel-oriented decisions. Stretching it out to maybe 6 weeks would 
make a significant difference, by avoiding the peak of pre-IETF work.

   Brian

---

From: Donald Eastlake 3rd <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2002 09:52:32 -0400 (EDT)

On Thu, 11 Apr 2002, Brian E Carpenter wrote:

> Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2002 11:40:08 +0200
> To: Donald Eastlake 3rd <[email-masked]>
> Cc: ietf-nomcom <[email-masked]>
> I really don't think that's fair comment.

Whether you like it or not, it is general trend of human nature. Whether
the nomcom has 3 or 6 or 9 or 12 months to do its work, most nomcoms
will do much of the final decision making, especially in difficult
cases, as late as they think will work based on the hard deadlines that
exist (IETF meeting date backed off by the serialization of the
confirming bodies decision times).

>                                       The people likely to be involved
> personnel-oriented decisions.

My point is that most nomcoms have frequently already done an ordering
of plausible available candidates. When someone withdraws, apparently
the most common reason for a last minute change, you just have a
conference call to confirm that people haven't come up with anything
that would change the existing ordering and go to the next name on the
list.

>                             Stretching it out to maybe 6 weeks would

While it all depends on the nomcom members and primarily on the chair,
giving the nomcom more calendar time for its work will not always
translate into it making decisions early. In human affairs, the pace of
work tends to increase as the deadline approaches. One of the major
benefits of having physical IETF meetings and, to a lesser extent,
having the 6 month ID expiration is to provide artificial deadlines to
get things moving. How exactly are you going to get nomcoms to send in
their candidates to the confirming bodies weeks early when they really
REALLY are having trouble finding someone for that hard to fill IESG
position and are sure another week or two of work will find a much
better candidate, especially when no one has ever been rejected (as far
as I know) so you are expecting them to hustle extra hard and send in
names weeks early based on a hypothetical?

Donald

---

From: Thomas Narten <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2002 12:57:51 -0400

> translate into it making decisions early.

I agree. If you want to add some meaningful timetable wording to the
document...

The current wording is:

      The annual selection and confirmation process is expected to be
      completed one month prior to the friday of the week before the
      First IETF.  It is expected to begin 4 months prior to the Friday
      of the week before the First IETF.

I think it would me more useful to say

1) the nomcom forwards its slate of candidates to the confirming body
   no later than (say) 6 weeks prior to the First IETF meeting. I.e.,
   allow sufficient time for the confirming body to think and maybe
   question.

2) The most important place for interacting with the community is the
   prior, i.e., Fall, IETF. To achieve this, add wording something to
   the effect: The nomcom should be fully constituted no later than
   one month prior the Fall IETF and should have made sufficient
   progress in its work so that it can use the Fall IETF to interview
   the community (i.e., IESG, IAB) as well as specific candidates for
   the open positions.

I think it important to emphasize the point about "interviewing
specific candidates", in the sense that interviewing candidates
implies that the nomcom has actually started building enough of a
short list to identify some people it actually wants to meet with
face-to-face.

Now, this may seem like its really moving up the target date. But
realistically, the December time frame where the nomcom needs to do
the most work, is really problematic due to holidays. This is both for
the nomcom members and the community (and candidates) when seeking
input/feedback.

Another possible proposal: it might be useful to move the timing of
the nomcom to either Summer or Fall, i.e., so that the nomcom isn't
doing its work time over the December holidays.

Thomas

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 12 Apr 2002 09:31:27 +0200

Ted's suggestion, I think, was to start one whole IETF sooner, i.e. pick the NomCom
before the July/August meeting. Just moving up the end date alone doesn't work.
Avoiding the December/January holiday season would certainly help, but we'd
also have to avoid the July/August holiday season.

However I have to register a continuing disagreement with Donald. From the
viewpoint of the approving bodies (and I've served on both of them), there
simply isn't enough time to go through an orderly candidate rejection
process, and there is a clear sense that rejecting a candidate would be
cataclysmic. If we don't fix this, the process doesn't actually have all
the checks and balances we think it does.

    Brian

---

From: Harald Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 12 Apr 2002 11:22:51 +0200

> the checks and balances we think it does.

Brian,
can you name a number that you would think would be "enough time"?

               harald

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 12 Apr 2002 11:29:26 +0200

> can you name a number that you would think would be "enough time"?

I think I already suggested 6 weeks.

   Brian

---

From: Donald Eastlake 3rd <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 12 Apr 2002 09:00:31 -0400 (EDT)

Hi,

On Fri, 12 Apr 2002, Brian E Carpenter wrote:

> Date: Fri, 12 Apr 2002 09:31:27 +0200
> To: Thomas Narten <[email-masked]>
> Cc: Donald Eastlake 3rd <[email-masked]>,

I don't deny that giving a confirming body more time would allow them to
be more relaxed. I just said that (1) giving the nomcom more time was no
guarantee that it would send candidates to be confirmed for all slots to
the confirmation body any earlier, and (2) for most positions, rejecting
the candidate is not nearly as bad as you, and apparently the
confirmation bodies, seem to think because a 2nd choice is already more
or less lined up. (Admittedly, it is probably the case that for very
hard to fill positions, there is a higher probability that the candidate
is marginal or unusual and thus a higher probability of rejection and
their probably isn't a clear 2nd choice lined up and these are just the
positions for which the nomcom is likely to be using every last minute
to scrape up a willing and acceptable candidate.)

So why don't we just put in a paragraph stating explictly "The rejection
of a candidate by a confirming body isn't cataclysmic but is a normal
part of the procedss."?

The primary effect of organizational mechanisms isn't necessarily in
their execution. Because there exists a clear mechanism to remove Area
Directors, they act and are viewed by the community, to a greater or
lesser extent, in a different way than they would be if they held office
for a term of years or life (as members of the IAB used to before the
nomcom) without possibility of removal even if removal is sufficiently
rare that none has yet occured. Because confirmatory bodies exist and
candidates DO NOT take office until after they are actually confirmed,
nomcoms act and are viewed by the community differently even if
rejection is sufficiently rare that a case has not yet occured. Most of
the salutory effect of having a confirmation process has already occured
by the time the candidates are submitted.

The concept is not that the cofirmations bodies should be able to
leisurely take their pick of a variety of candidates. The nomcom is not
supposed to just be winnowing things down with the confirmatory body
making the final choice. As the representatives of the IETF Community,
the nomcom, with the advice and assistance of the liaisons, is supposed
to make the choice, subject to a final sanity check by the confirming
bodies.

See on additional comments below.

> >    allow sufficient time for the confirming body to think and maybe

Seems to me it would be useful to point out that it is normal for all
the IESG candidates to be confirmed by the old IAB before the new IAB
candidates are sent to the ISOC BoT. At least all nomcoms I know about
have done this because IESG positions are so much harder to fill and you
might want to filch someone from the IAB for them. So until the new IESG
is stable, you don't want to be pinned down for all the IAB slots. So,
in reality, the confirmations are serialized.

> > doing its work time over the December holidays.

Thanks,
Donald

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 13 Apr 2002 18:42:12 -0400

--On Friday, 12 April, 2002 09:00 -0400 Donald Eastlake 3rd
<[email-masked]> wrote:

>...
> Seems to me it would be useful to point out that it is normal
> for all the IESG candidates to be confirmed by the old IAB
> before the new IAB candidates are sent to the ISOC BoT. At
> least all nomcoms I know about have done this because IESG
> positions are so much harder to fill and you might want to
> filch someone from the IAB for them. So until the new IESG is
> stable, you don't want to be pinned down for all the IAB
> slots. So, in reality, the confirmations are serialized.
>...

Donald,

If what we are trying to do is to get the Nomcom's results into
the hands of the confirming bodies earlier, so as to give them a
sensible amount of time to evaluate the slates and, if needed,
iterate with the Nomcom without causing a crisis, then it seems
to me that explicitly serializing things is just the wrong cure
to the problem you identify.  Instead, I would think that we
would want to:

(i) Give the Nomcom a deadline for having names to the
confirming bodies.

(ii) Encourage them to beat that schedule if possible and,

(iii) If they have to "flich someone" from the IAB to fill an
IESG position after pushback from the IAB (or vice versa after
pushback from the ISOC BoT -- I grant that is the less likely
case, but I don't see any reason to exclude it as a possibility,
which is the other reason to not serialize the two explicitly),
then it is a plain, ordinary, vacancy-filling situation, isn't
it?  And that should be, as has been pointed out, pretty easy
since memories will be fresh and the nomcom will already have
second choices in mind.

     john

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 13 Apr 2002 17:49:09 -0700

At 06:42 PM 4/13/2002 -0400, John C Klensin wrote:
>pushback from the ISOC BoT

This all presumes that the role of the IAB or ISOC BoT review is to decide 
whether particular nominees are acceptable.

For the review body to be able to perform such selective analysis and 
approval adequately, they must have a comparable amount of information as 
the Nomcom and perform a comparable analysis of the trade-offs that go into 
making selections.

Not surprisingly, the review bodies cannot possibly satisfy either of these 
requirements.  They do not have anything approaching the level overall 
knowledge about the selection circumstances nor are they able to devote 
anything approaching the level of discussion and debate that takes place in 
a Nomcom.

Instead, it makes sense for the review bodies to ensure that Nomcom has 
conducted a competent process.  Such validation means much more than a 
simplistic review of the number of meetings or the number of candiates, or 
other such trivia.  It very much does mean reviewing the overall Nomcom 
process, and that certainly can and should include requiring Nomcom to 
explain the basis for various choices.

In fact a "surprising" Nomcom choice certainly should be challenged by the 
review body, on the theory that a surprising choice carries a higher 
possibility of erroneous process.  However different things can be 
challenged and the review body needs to be careful that its challenge has a 
constructive focus.

There is a very big difference between a review body effectively responding 
"please explain how you came to this extraordinary choice", versus 
effectively responding "the review body believes you have not considered 
matters adequately and need to talk to more people" or "the review body 
believes you have made a bad choice, choose someone else".

d/

----------
Dave Crocker <mailto:[email-masked]>
TribalWise, Inc. <http://www.tribalwise.com>
tel +1.408.246.8253; fax +1.408.850.1850

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2002 09:32:27 +0200

Dave Crocker wrote:
...
> believes you have made a bad choice, choose someone else".

And the second mode is more likely to occur if there is a little more
time, and if the NomCom is charged to supply the background information
in the first place. 

   Brian

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2002 15:23:44 -0700

>time, and if the NomCom is charged to supply the background information

First of all, the idea that a bit more time will make it possible for the 
review body to replicate the work of nomcom is not realistic.

Second of all, if the idea is to seek to have the review body replicate the 
work of nomcom, then please let's get rid of nomcom.  Nomcom is not 
fun.  It is difficult, draining work.  It is bad enough having one group do 
the work.  It is downright abusive to suggest that two do it.

To repeat:  Nomcom formulates choices through a crucible process that is 
jam-packed with constraints and trade-offs.  The juggling act that produces 
those choices cannot be replicated by a few discussions among distant 
reviewers.

d/

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

---

From: Randy Bush <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2002 11:44:55 +0900

[ while i understand and agree with your non-duplication position, ... ]

> review body to replicate the work of nomcom is not realistic.

i think the hope is s/replicate/understand and consider/

and then, to negotiate if there is serious doubt/disagreement

randy

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2002 20:04:24 -0700

>i think the hope is s/replicate/understand and consider/

that distinction is the entire issue, in particular what exactly is the 
goal of understanding and considering.

>and then, to negotiate if there is serious doubt/disagreement

Yes, but what is valid to disagree about?

To repeat, I believe that the review body can and must obtain enough 
information to convince itself that nomcom conducted a fair and deliberated 
process and that it had sufficient information.  I also believe that the 
review body should not attempt to second-guess the nomcom.  In fact these 
can seem to be competing goals.  As I noted, I believe it is entirely 
appropriate for the review panel to react to an unusual nomcom 
recommendation by requiring unusual degrees of convincing that the decision 
was developed adequately.

FYI, folks:

For reference, I am belaboring this topic because I believe there is 
long-standing, deep-seated confusion about this, and that the IETF would do 
well to find a way to state the nature, goals and limits of the nomcom 
review mechanisms much, much more carefully and completely than we so far 
have.  (The danger with such an effort, of course, is that it will overly 
constrain legitimate review.)

Disagreements/challenges between the nomcom and the review group are 
extremely awkward and the communication channel between them is remarkably 
poor.  Very narrow and very high latency.  No meaningful basis for 
"negotiation".

The communication problem is exacerbated by the mutual desire to make the 
communications hyper-clean and careful.  This is good for diplomacy and bad 
for conveying depth of honest meaning.

d/

----------

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2002 07:58:04 +0200

> i think the hope is s/replicate/understand and consider/

Indeed. As Dave seems unwilling to accept, the confirming bodies take their
responsibility very seriously, cannot reach their conclusions in a day or two,
and have more than once been inhibited from exercising their power by simple
shortage of time and consequent concern about causing a meltdown.
> and then, to negotiate if there is serious doubt/disagreement

Exactly. Negotiation takes time. Three more weeks, in my estimation, would
allow this.

   Brian

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2002 07:47:00 -0700

At 07:58 AM 4/16/2002 +0200, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>responsibility very seriously,

Brian, thanks for the ad hominem, especially since there is nothing in my 
notes -- or my intent, by the way -- that in any way mistrusts the motives 
of any of the nomcom process.

For the n-th time:  The issue is specification of tasks.  Any belief that a 
review body is expected to decide the acceptability of a particular 
candidate is doomed.  The only reasonable task for the review body is to 
review nomcom process and push back if there is indication that the process 
has not been conducted adequately.

>Exactly. Negotiation takes time. Three more weeks, in my estimation, would

The interaction method that currently exists between nomcom and the review 
bodies is not, and cannot be, a negotiation.  The idea that it is 
negotiation demonstrates the problem about the review bodies' job.

Even if the goal were negotiation, time is not the problem.  The issue is 
the tone of the interaction and the design of the channel, which is formal 
email, crafted like diplomatic missives.

d/

Folks, the fact that this topic has not engaged a wider range of 
participation is duly noted.  More comments from others who have served on 
nomcoms would be particularly helpful.

----------

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2002 17:00:40 +0200

Dave, I agree that we need to hear more voices. But I want to underline that
I believe that checks and balances *require* that the confirming body has the
ability to reject candidates. I quite agree that its primary function is
to verify due process but this is pointless without teeth.

I don't think my comment was ad hominem; it just seemed that the point 
wasn't getting through.

  Brian

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2002 09:01:24 -0700

>to verify due process but this is pointless without teeth.

Please note that there is no question whether the review body does or 
should have real authority.  No question at all.

Worse, the difference between rejecting a decision process, versus 
rejecting the result of that process, might seem subtle.  Heck, maybe it 
really IS subtle.

The question is the target of that authority.

Let me suggest that the term "negotiation" highlights the problem.  The 
review body simply cannot reasonably be approving individuals.  And having 
nomcom submit the list of candidates a little earlier does not change this.

         The only role that is practical is for the review bodies to
         review (and approve or reject) the nomcom selection process.

That's a validation, not negotiation.

d/

----------

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2002 10:01:59 +0200

Dave,

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.

  Brian

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2002 08:30:51 -0700

>simply reject a candidate, as it does today. Otherwise, it is toothless.

Brian, I have raised some specific points that you have not responded to 
yet. Simply trading shots of i-am-right-you-are-wrong is not very helpful.

1.  How can the approving body do an evaluation that matches the depth and 
care of nomcom?  It does not replicate the nomcom process.

2.  To the extent that the approving body can perform an equivalently 
thorough analysis, then what is the point of having nomcom in the first 
place, since it is redundant with the effort of the approving body.

d/

----------

---

From: Thomas Narten <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2002 12:34:04 -0400

I think the issue is not whether the confirming body can reject a
candidate, its on what grounds.

Currently, there is little wording in 2727 on the reasons. A
reasonable intepretation is that the confirming body can reject a
candidate for whatever reason it chooses. I believe Brian is arguing
that this is the right intent.

I think that Dave is asserting it shouldn't have a blank check, but
should  only be able to reject in more narrow circumstances. E.g.,
process failure within the  nomcom.

I think it would be good to clarify the wording here, so that should a
confirming body decide to question the choice of a candidate or reject
one, the nomcom understands on whether the grounds for the
questioning/rejection are legitimate.

Thomas

---

From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2002 18:22:55 -0700

Brian and all,

  Brian, this is one of the few opportunities that I have to agree with
Dave Crocker AKA D'Crock.  >;)

  The notion that any candidate that could be rejected because of some
undefined reason or a reason that is paramount to him/her being
politically "Incorrect" or not liked by some "Approving Body"
without some explicit provisions, is ludicrous beyond reason.

Brian E Carpenter wrote:

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

Regards,
--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 121k members/stakeholdes strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [email-masked]
Contact Number:  972-244-3801 or 214-244-4827
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208

---

From: Rob Austein <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2002 19:23:21 -0400

> care of nomcom?  It does not replicate the nomcom process.

The confirming body probably can't.  It may, however, feel that it
must try, if the available alternatives to doing so look bad enough.

> place, since it is redundant with the effort of the approving body.

Why do people build security systems that require proof of consent of
more than one party to perform some action?

In this case each of the parties is a committee rather than a single
individual, but the principle is the same.

---

From: Harald Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 18 Apr 2002 20:39:01 +0200

Thinking through this on a case-by-case basis - this particular case set is 
seen from the confirming body.

Scenario 1:
Nomcom makes a selection. The confirming body has information which, in its 
opinion, makes the candidate obviously unsuited for the job, and which it 
thinks that the nomcom cannot possibly have considered.

Scenario 2:
Nomcom makes a selection. The confirming body doesn't like the candidate 
much.

Scenario 3:
Nomcom makes a selection. The confirming body doesn't have a specific 
objection to the candidate, but would rather have someone else.

I think we would want to make it possible for the confirming body to reject 
the nominee in scenario 1, but that it would be a constitutional crisis if 
it were to reject the nomination in scenarios 2 and 3.

The problem with writing that into the rules is, of course, that without 
discussion between Nomcom and the confirming body, there is no way either 
body can tell which scenario we're in.

                     Harald

--On onsdag, april 17, 2002 08:30:51 -0700 Dave Crocker 
<[email-masked]> wrote:

> 1.  How can the approving body do an evaluation that matches the depth
> and care of nomcom?  It does not replicate the nomcom process.
>

---

From: Bill Woodcock <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 18 Apr 2002 11:56:19 -0700 (PDT)

> objection to the candidate, but would rather have someone else.

As you say, the problem is that the confirming body always considers its
whim to constitute "critical information" as in your scenario 1, whereas
the Nomcom might be quite reasonably suspicious that whims might be
better categorized under scenario 3.

                                -Bill

---

From: Harald Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 18 Apr 2002 22:29:14 +0200

> better categorized under scenario 3.

And (IMHO) the only way to figure out which scenario is which is sharing 
your information and talking about it before making a decision.

Which Brian's 6 weeks will allow.

The point being - all the scenarios *might* occur. So we can't base the 
rules on only one of them occuring.

                    Harald

---

From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 18 Apr 2002 16:37:59 -0700

Harald and all,

> thinks that the nomcom cannot possibly have considered.

  This seems a bit cryptic and a reasonable scenario unless or until
the criterion for what constitutes "Unsuitable"...  Hence without
such criterion defined specifically, just about any reason could be given
to declare any candidate as "Unsuitable".

> Nomcom makes a selection. The confirming body doesn't like the candidate

  This almost the same as your Scenario 1...

> objection to the candidate, but would rather have someone else.

  Again depending on what the criterion are to justify such declaration,
this Scenario is very much like scenario 1 as well...

> it were to reject the nomination in scenarios 2 and 3.

  Why?  I don't see any reason why any self declared candidate
could not stand for election unless they were a convicted criminal,
or a known terrorist..  Hence I don't see a compelling need or
reason for a "Confirming Body" unless there is some specific
yet to be defined reason to exclude some potential self declared
candidates...

Regards,

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 20 Apr 2002 11:42:56 -0700

>candidate, its on what grounds.

The current rules do allow the confirming body to reject individual 
candidates.  We could have a larger debate about that rule and whether it 
should be changed.  However Thomas' phrasing of the issue is more 
practical.  It let's us focus on formulating focused guidance to the 
confirming bodies, within the current rules.

I support Thomas' suggestion we consider:

         What are the grounds on which a confirming body may reject a 
candidate?

At 01:39 PM 4/17/2002 -0400, Joel M. Halpern wrote:
>...  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.

Nor would I.  Each nomcom probably has one or more members who are, shall 
we say, not very constructive.  (And, no, of course the one I was just on 
had no such person...)

Hence it is certain that one of these days the entire nomcom be composed of 
rogue members.  Hence the confirming bodies must retain the ability for 
"strategic" rejection of a nomcom's recommendations.

If the confirming body chooses to make a rejection because they disagree 
with a nomcom's "agenda", then there will be a fundamental 
conflict.  Nomcoms do not engage in those agendas lightly.  So in such 
situations, the effect will be massive.  No minor changes to the current 
process will fix that.  Not more time in the process, not better rules.

The reality is that the conflict management mechanism that Marshall 
described is all that can be available.

A tactical change to the nomcom process, that might help avoid major 
conflicts between a nomcom and the confirming body, is for the nomcom to 
float a list of candidates by the confirming body PRIOR to formulating the 
final set of nominations.

For example:

         The nomcom could circulate its short list of candidates for each
         position -- that is, the set of candidates being considered for
         the final round of nomcom deliberations -- to the confirming body,
         requesting the confirming body for any comments it might have about
         the candidates.

The nomcom could then factor that feedback into its final 
deliberations.  The danger is that this would effectively move the final 
portion of the selection process to the confirming body.

         We need to find a way for resolution (or avoidance) of major 
disputes between
         a nomcom and the confirming body to happen BEFORE the end of the 
process.

         By the end of the process, nomcom participants have expended an 
enormous
         amount of effort, energy and emotion.  By the end of the process, 
nomcom
         participants are drained.

         It is quite simply unreasonable to reward such volunteer efforts 
with a
         confirming body response that pretends that the confirming body's 
intuitive
         sense about candidates is better than the nomcom's evaluation after a
         protracted efforts.

To the extent that the confirming body DOES have a better sense of the 
choices than the nomcom, then we really are wasting time and resources by 
bothering to have a nomcom.

At 08:39 PM 4/18/2002 +0200, Harald Alvestrand wrote:
>Thinking through this on a case-by-case basis - this particular case set 
>is seen from the confirming body.

Trying to develop a case analylsis set is a good idea.  This initial list 
of three is useful for distinguishing that some confirming body reasons are 
probably inappropriate whereas others are obviously essential.  This 
encourages requiring the confirming body to be very clear about its reasons.

Joel's example of disagreement with nomcom "agenda" shows that the range of 
confirming body reasons for objecting can be more varied than the short 
list of three that Harald provided.

>must try, if the available alternatives to doing so look bad enough.

No doubt a confirming body might wish to enjoy parental rights over nomcom 
but it does not have them.  The difference between final approval rights, 
versus parental rights is not small or whimsical.  The former is a peer 
process to ensure a check and balance, while the latter presumes immaturity 
in the nomcom and inherent superiority of insight by the confirming body.

The fact that a confirming body might want to do the impossible, and 
pretend that it can replicate the depth and thoroughness of the nomcom 
process, is exactly the sort of problem that needs to be fixed.  It is a 
real and current problem.

An impractical goal is not made practical by the good intentions of 
misguided confirming body members.  We need to look at these activities 
with a careful eye towards practicality.

d/

----------

---

From: Rob Austein <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 21 Apr 2002 00:04:38 -0400

> in the nomcom and inherent superiority of insight by the confirming body.

Amusing rant, Dave, but as far as I can tell it has nothing to do with
anything I said.

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 21 Apr 2002 09:06:24 -0700

>Amusing rant, Dave, but as far as I can tell it has nothing to do with

Rob, I had hoped that the difference in tone between the rest of my note 
and the section commenting on your own note would make a point, but 
apparently it was missed.

So a more detailed effort at that point:

>must try, if the available alternatives to doing so look bad enough.

Your response is summarized simply as:  the confirming body probably can't 
match the nomcom effort, but it may feel like trying.

So it might feel like trying to do something it can't succeed at.

Your response suggests that we should accept this, even though you admit it 
is not viable.

A distinctive item in this whole thread is the tendency to propose or 
support categories of activity that have no underlying basis offered to us, 
in spite of specific arguments against them.

So if you want to do more than object to my tone, please consider 
explaining why we should find it acceptable for a confirming body to try to 
do something they will not succeed at.

d/

----------

---

From: Rob Austein <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 21 Apr 2002 13:43:40 -0400

> apparently it was missed.

Oh, it made a point, but probably not the one you intended.

> So a more detailed effort at that point:

Thanks.

> match the nomcom effort, but it may feel like trying.

You appear to be using some interesting new definition of the word
"summarized" that I've not previously encountered.

At any rate: let's consider a hypothetical case in which the
confirming body has detected what it thinks is a process problem in
the nomcom and has not been able to get enough cooperation from the
nomcom to address its concerns about the process in a timely manner.
Now put yourself in the position of the confirming body, and think
about what options you have.  You could:

a) Reject the nomcom output and trigger a constitutional crisis;

b) Blindly accept the nomcom output even though the process that
   produced it appears to have been flawed;

c) Attempt to confirm independently that the nomcom's output is
   acceptable in spite of whatever flaws you think you've detected in
   the process that produced it.

Not a pretty choice.  I gather that you may think the confirming body
should not have option (c).  If so, you are of course entitled to your
opinion, but I respectfully submit that the cost to the IETF of ruling
out that option might be rather high.

This is of course a hypothetical situation, and any resemblance it
might bear to any nomcom or confirming body living, dead, or wandering
the night in ghostly torment is purely coincidental.

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 22 Apr 2002 09:36:20 +0200

Dave Crocker wrote:
...
> real and current problem.

No it isn't. The real and current problem is that whenever a choice made by
NomCom looks strange to the confirming body, the latter is forced to ask
questions about details of NomCom process in order to evaluate its depth and
thoroughness. In more than one year, this has resulted in the NomCom contacting
more people and obtaining more input, which suggests that the confirming
bodies had something valid to worry about.

  Brian

---

From: Thomas Narten <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2002 15:39:22 -0400

Dave Crocker <[email-masked]> writes:

> candidates.

Huh? where did you get that idea? 2727 says:

      If all of the candidates are confirmed, the job of the nominating
      committee with respect to reviewing the open IESG positions is
      considered complete.  If some or none of the candidates are
      confirmed, the nominating committee must reconvene to select
      alternate candidates for the rejected candidates.  Any additional
      time required by the nominating committee should not exceed its
      maximum time allotment.

      If all of the candidates are confirmed, the job of the nominating
      committee with respect to reviewing the open IAB positions is
      considered complete.  If some or none of the candidates are
      confirmed, the nominating committee must reconvene to select
      alternate candidates for the rejected candidates.  Any additional
      time required by the nominating committee should not exceed its
      maximum time allotment.

---

From: Thomas Narten <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2002 16:44:13 -0400

> > The current rules do allow the confirming body to reject individual 

Oops. I guess I need better glasses. I read this as do NOT allow, for
some reason.

Sorry 'bout that.

Thomas