Subject: RE: Proposals for closing open issues

From: [email-masked]
Date: Thu, 06 Nov 2003 14:47:41 -0500

Hi All,

The proposed solutions would satisfy my blocking issues,
except for one remaining question:

> "Nomcom-caused Mid-term Vacancies:
> 
> From time to time the Nomcom may propose moving a serving Area  
> Director or IAB member from one position to another. (E.g. moving
> a Transport AD to cover O&M). If the serving member is at the 
> end of their normal term there is no change in procedures. Otherwise, 
> this is treated as a mid-term vacancy and mid-term procedures are 
> used with the following exceptions:
> 
> a) If the vacancy will occur on the IAB due to a move from 
> the IAB to the IESG, the Nomcom may, upon confirmation of nominee/IAB 
> member, submit for confirmation as part of the normal slate of 
> candidates another nominee to complete the term of the departing 
> IAB member. If the Nomcom declines to nominate a replacement as 
> part of the annual process, the IAB may, at any time after the 
> confirmation of the departing member, ask the Nomcom to  fill
> the slot using mid-term procedures.

Is this whole section only intended to apply during the annual
process?  If so, I think that should be more explicit.

If not, then exception (a) should probably indicate that it only
applies during the annual process and/or when more than N IAB
positions are simultaneously being filled.

Otherwise, it is still ambiguous what procedure should be used
if an IAB member is moved to the IESG to fill an interim vacancy.
I _think_ that the WG intends that the IAB position thus vacated
would be filled using the full interim vacancy process...

Margaret

---

From: "Putzolu, David" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 06 Nov 2003 14:42:40 -0800

> > Rationale:  While the information is important for the IETF 
> > participants to understand the choices, publishing it prior to the 
> > nomcom making a choice may result less than useful public discussion

> > of that criteria and thrashing (as in "page thrashing") of the
process.
> 
> Rationale: I believe that it would valuable for the community to 
> provide feedback on the qualifications required for leadership 
> positions _before_ the leaders are chosen to fill them.  I also 
> think that posting the qualifications might help the community
> to identify and represent qualified nominees.

I agree with the point above.  Also,  the feedback/"thrashing" 
given might contain useful input to the decision making process.

Cheers,
David