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

From: Phil Roberts <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2003 11:16:11 -0500

Michael StJohns wrote:
> >
> > 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 body could be withdrawn.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. 

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
> 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.

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.

[Phil Roberts] It might be the case though that the nomcom trying to balance
between difficult choices would like to have back one of the
candidates the confirming body confirmed if another is candidate is
rejected.  One might be in a situation for example where there is a large
turnover and the nomcom has determined that such a large turnover could be
enough of a disruption to the community, that the nomcom, on
the community's behalf, is unwilling to change a large number and by being
constrained with the already confirmed candidates has to make one change
more than it is otherwise willing to do.  This would hardly be a summary
reversal, but something quite considered.  The process would
be helped by allowing such an interaction.
 
Phil

---

From: Michael StJohns <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2003 13:06:56 -0500

>  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.
>
>
>[Phil Roberts] It might be the case though that the nomcom trying to 
>balance between difficult choices would like to have back one of the

Let me try and follow this.  I think what you're saying is that for example 
you've got 6 positions to fill.  Of the 6 you nominate 3 incumbents and 3 
new folks.  The confirming body confirms the three new folks, 2 of the 
incumbents, and rejects 1 incumbent.  You would then want to withdraw one 
of the newly confirmed new folk, and replace them with the incumbent and 
the same time you're sending another new person to replace the rejected 
incumbent because otherwise you'd have "too many changes".

Umm...this is wrong is so many ways that I don't even know how to begin.

The guideline of "try not to make too many changes" is exactly that, a 
guideline and is helpful for selecting between otherwise relatively equally 
qualified candidates.  Its not a suicide pact.  If you had six failing 
incumbents you would be derelict in your duty if you failed to replace them 
all.  Period.  If the nomcom at first pass decided that a new person was 
better qualified than the incumbent, and the confirming body agreed, there 
literally is no fair and equitable way of invalidating that confirmation 
without involving the confirmee.

The nomcom should do the best it can and select the best candidates it can 
and not worry overly much about secondary considerations after the first pass.

---

From: Phil Roberts <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2003 13:15:22 -0500

> incumbent because otherwise you'd have "too many changes".

Right.

> Umm...this is wrong is so many ways that I don't even know 

Seems all too right to me.

> without involving the confirmee.

It might make sense to have the confirming body confirm or reject
a slate with reasons for rejecting a slate that include "candidate
x is not acceptable."  It might just be the case that an alternate
slate that didn't include x didn't include y as well, who the confirming
body would be willing to confirm.  It might not always be the case
that a bunch of individuals outweighs the value of a group.

> and not worry overly much about secondary considerations 

Well, I agree, but perhaps based on our separate experiences we differ
about what are primary and secondary considerations?

Phil