Subject: Re: Re: Notes from one member of the IAB on the current draft

From: Michael StJohns <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2003 13:12:54 -0500 (GMT)

Hi Brian -

I appreciate that you disagree, but you haven't provided any reasoning
behind your thoughts so its difficult for me to make any further comment. 
I've supported my thoughts, it would be helpful to me and probably to others
if you would provide more detail than that you simply disagree.

See below for a comment on the specific item you commented on.

-------Original Message-------
From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Sent: 03/25/03 12:18 PM
To: Michael StJohns <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Notes from one member of the IAB on the current draft

> 
> Mike, I can only repeat that I simply don't see any of these aspects as
problems,
except for one logical issue you point out:

> During the
>   > >            course of the consultation the nominating committee may
>   > >            re-examine the slate of candidates and may change it in 

any
>   > >            way.
>   > 
> 
> 
> 
> This implies that the candidates already confirmed by the confirming
body could be withdrawn.  I think that's a *really
> really really* bad idea and unfair to the confirmed candidates.  

Well, all this process remains under the seal of confidentiality, so
the confirmed candidates would never know. But I agree, it would be very
bizarre to withdraw a nomination at this stage, although I can imagine
an AD nominee being renominated to a different Area or even to IETF Chair,
after the confirming body rejected a nominee. So we need a sentence
that enables NomCom to react flexibly to a rejection, without endorsing
egregious actions.

   During the course of the consultation, the nominating committee may
   adjust the slate of candidates in response to the confirming body's
   partial confirmation, by replacing the nominees who were not already
   confirmed, and in the case of the IESG, possibly by changing the
positions 
   to which already confirmed candidates are appointed.

     Brian

This is actually already in the text in other places - in fact in the
paragraph following the one referenced.  And I repeat - it is not and should
not be a consultive communication - the confirming body should be free to
deliberate without undue influence from the Nomcom.  The confirming body
should be free to seek information, it should not be soliciting opinion from the 
Nomcom past that implied by the submission of the particular candidate.

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2003 22:04:42 +0100

I took a few days off from this thread to pay attention to my day job...

> Nomcom past that implied by the submission of the particular candidate.

OK, you are bothered by the word "consult" in a way that I'm not. I would
certainly agree to a more neutral word such as "communicate". In the cases 
where I've been involved, the communication has in fact been interrogatory
(i.e. the confirming body asks the NomCom "Did you consider issue X when 
choosing nominee Y?" or "Did you seek an opinion about nominee Y from 
source Z?").

Now let me try to be constructive. How would you find this as a 
replacement for section 3, paragraph 7 sub paragraph 3 paragraph 
beginning "If some or none..." ?

  If not all the candidates submitted to a confirming body are 
  rapidly confirmed, the confirming body continues to communicate
  with the nominating committee both to understand the committee's 
  rationale for the slate and, if appropriate, to explain the reason 
  why all the candidates were not confirmed.  

  The confirming body may ask the nominating committee for additional 
  information about a nominee, or about the nominating committee's procedure,
  to assist them in their deliberations. However, the confirming body 
  and the nominating committee must refrain from mutual communication
  about availability, qualification or characteristics of other possible
  candidates for the position.

Then extend the following paragraph to become:

  The confirming body may reject individual candidates, in
  which case the nominating committee must select alternate
  candidates for the rejected candidates, and in the case of 
  the IESG, may possibly change the positions to which already 
  confirmed candidates are appointed.

     Brian

---

From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2003 02:26:32 -0800

Brian and all,

  I also have a problem with the term "Consult" in the context in which it
was used.  I would also suggest that everyone ask themselves why
would source "z", as you use it here Brian, have any importance with
consideration "x" and/or "y" ?  And secondly, isn't the consideration
"x" or "y" the important thing, not the source of those or any other
consideration being brought up?

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 LLA. - (Over 129k members/stakeholders strong!)
================================================================
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [email-masked]
Contact Number: 214-244-4827 or 214-244-3801

---

From: Michael StJohns <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2003 10:16:09 -0500

At 10:04 PM 3/28/2003 +0100, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> > the confirmed candidates would never know.

Sorry to go back to this, but should have commented before.  Its actually 
important to your current submission.

"... confirmed candidates would never know." Except in the case that the 
IAB is considering an IESG where a current IAB member has been 
submitted.  The IAB member is disqualified from participating in their own 
confirmation, but not in others. Current practice generally has the 
confirmation or rejection of the IAB IESG candidate first, and then 
bringing in that IAB member to consider the rest of the candidates and 
positions.  There are other reasons related to process deadlock why this is 
a bad idea which we can get in to if necessary.

>But I agree, it would be very
> > after the confirming body rejected a nominee.

As can I, but I stress that its not the Nomcom's choice to summarily 
reverse a previous confirmation.  See my previous comments on how to 
equitably handle this issue.  It shouldn't take more than a day for the 
Nomcom to ASK the confirmee if they're willing to be moved once they've 
been confirmed.

>So we need a sentence

And those are questions of fact, not of opinion.   Also, I'm not looking 
for neutral, I'm looking for accurate.  "Communicate" is at least 
non-egregious, and probably accurate enough for this.

>   rapidly

Where did "rapidly" come from?  Remove.  Once the slate is handed to the 
confirming body, the Nomcom is out of the loop until the confirming body 
responds.  As stated, implies that the Nomcom gets to start prodding the 
confirming body.  The prodding if any should probably come from the IESG 
Secretary?

Also, the type of communication we're talking about more appropriately 
happens BEFORE the confirming body actually makes a decision.

>confirmed, the confirming body

>  continues to communicate

"may communicate" - continues to communicate implies that it was already 
having a dialog, and also that such communication is mandatory on the part 
of the confirming body.  The confirming body may believe, with good 
justification, that it has all necessary information it needs.

>   rationale for the slate

See below.

>  and, if appropriate, to explain the reason

So replace this with
"During the course of its deliberations, the confirming body may 
communicate with the nominating committee to understand the committee's 
rationale for the slate, and the rationale for any specific nominee.  If 
the confirming body chooses not to confirm one or more candidates, it is 
appropriate and helpful, but not mandatory,  for the confirming body to 
provide a brief explanation to the nominating committee of the reasoning 
behind the failure to confirm to assist the nominating committee in its 
selection of an alternate."

>   candidates for the position.

Yup.

>   candidates for the rejected candidates,

Yup.

>and in the case of

NO.  For all the reasons I've stated before.  There is no reason the Nomcom 
can't ASK a selectee if they'll give up their position, but they don't get 
to do it unilaterally.   Also, as stated implies that the nomcom can take 
any confirmee and stick them in any slot without further reference to the 
confirming body.

>      Brian

Obviously, if any of this makes it in its going to require at least one 
editing pass to make sure it all works together.

Later, Mike

---

From: Michael StJohns <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2003 10:27:03 -0500

>consideration being brought up?

Hi Jeff -

Actually, questions of the form "Did you ask the co-area AD about this 
candidate who could become the other area AD?" are common and actually 
useful.   The ADs have to work together and, in most cases, have a pretty 
good understanding of the area, the job requirements, and the qualification 
of reasonable candidates. Other similar questions get asked of folks in the 
area, or in key working groups within the area.  Understanding that the 
nomcom did do these inquiries is a reasonable way of validating the process 
as described actually happened.

Questions of the form "did you consider issue x when nominating y" mostly 
take the form of "Does y have any experience dealing with x?" where x might 
be security, wireless, multicast, operations, etc.  E.g. "You were told to 
look for a security AD with operational clue, but it wasn't clear from the 
resume that your selectee had such clue - could you elaborate on Y's 
experience in operations?"  Again helpful if the written materials aren't 
clear.

Note - these are just example questions, and aren't representative of what 
actually happened this year or any other.

Mike