Subject: DISCUSSION: disputes regarding selection of NOMCOM members

From: James M Galvin <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2002 16:27:32 -0500 (EST)

The document is currently silent on the issue of how to handle disputes
regarding the selection of NOMCOM members.  Although this has not been
an issue to date it has been suggested this is a procedural issue we
should address.

I would propose we use the ordinary dispute resolution process already
defined for our processes.  The only issues I see are that there is no
working group chair, per se, to whom to make the first "complaint" nor
is there an identified Area Director for escalation.

I would propose we recognize the appointed Chair of the Nominating
Committee as the Working Group Chair and that the designated Area
Director should be from the General Area.  If there is more than one
General Area Director the specific one shall be the incumbent one, i.e.,
not the one who is due to be re-considered during this NOMCOM cycle.

Comments or other suggestions?

Jim

---

From: Robert Elz <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2002 18:46:38 +0700

Date:        Wed, 13 Mar 2002 16:27:32 -0500 (EST)
    From:        James M Galvin <[email-masked]>
    Message-ID:  <[email-masked]>

  | I would propose we recognize the appointed Chair of the Nominating
  | Committee as the Working Group Chair and that the designated Area
  | Director should be from the General Area.

Just make it explicitly be the IETF chair (which is de-facto the same
thing, but avoids building in an assumption that there is a "general"
area that has a chair - once upon a time we had a user services area...)

  | Comments or other suggestions?

Aside from that, looks fine.

kre

---

From: James M Galvin <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2002 09:27:07 -0500 (EST)

Your right, I should have caught that.  This document necessarily does
not comment on the organization of the IAB or the IESG, so it would be
wrong to suggest there exists a General Area.

I'll change it to be the IETF Chair, unless someone has a better
suggestion.

Jim

On Thu, 14 Mar 2002, Robert Elz wrote:

    Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2002 18:46:38 +0700
    From: Robert Elz <[email-masked]>
    To: James M Galvin <[email-masked]>
    Cc: [email-masked], [email-masked]
    Subject: Re: DISCUSSION: disputes regarding selection of NOMCOM members

    kre

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

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2002 16:25:03 +0100

I don't have context for this (off line in the airline system for a day)
but it looks suspiciously like making the NomCom chair be judge and jury
and that is a Bug.

   Brian

----------------------------------------------------------------
The ebxml-dev list is sponsored by OASIS.
To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription
manager: <http://lists.ebxml.org/ob/adm.pl>

---

From: James M Galvin <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2002 17:01:31 -0500 (EST)

I don't see the judge and jury bug.  Can you say more about what you're
concerned about?

Jim

On Thu, 14 Mar 2002, Brian E Carpenter wrote:

    Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2002 16:25:03 +0100
    From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
    To: Robert Elz <[email-masked]>
    Cc: James M Galvin <[email-masked]>,
         [email-masked], [email-masked]
    Subject: Re: DISCUSSION: disputes regarding selection of NOMCOM members

       Brian

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2002 15:28:50 +0100

>   | Director should be from the General Area.

I can reply more coherently, or retract what I said...

   Brian

---

From: Robert Elz <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2002 18:59:01 +0700

Date:        Thu, 14 Mar 2002 16:25:03 +0100
    From:        Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
    Message-ID:  <[email-masked]>

  | I don't have context for this (off line in the airline system for a day)
  | but it looks suspiciously like making the NomCom chair be judge and jury
  | and that is a Bug.

I think it is the lack of context that gives rise to that impression,
along with my cc'ing my responses to the poised list, so a wider audience
could be aware a discussion on these issues is actually (starting to)
take place.   My reply though didn't include much of the context of the
issue - perhaps it should have had more - but this one I generally regarded
as a fairly minor correction that needed to be made, so it was a short reply
with only a short quote for context.

kre