Subject: Re: Should a CB approve a slate or individuals?

From: Thomas Narten <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 03 Apr 2003 06:50:04 -0500

As one who argued for having the CB confirm the slate as a whole (or
reject it as whole), here is my thinking.

The intent was not to move from confirmation of "individuals" model to
"a slate" model, but rather to give the nomcom the _possibility_ of
reconsidering a slate if one of its selections is rejected. In
practice, I expect the nomcom in most cases to just resubmit the
individuals for which there is no issue and find others for the ones
the CB had an issue with.

Right now, however, it seems like the CB could reject one choice and
confirm the others, when in fact, confirmation of the others (in
conjunction with a rejection) is not what the nomcom thinks is the
best overall choice.  One can argue that this situation is a bit of a
corner case and can be avoided by having the nomcom and CB having a
dialog prior to the CB rendering an official decision, but I worry
that this won't happen in practice. In my experience, the dialog
between the nomcom and CB is rather formal and narrow.

Thus, making the formal confirmation/rejection be on the slate as a
whole ensures that the nomcom has the _option_ of reshuffling the
slate. Nothing more.

Thomas

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 04 Apr 2003 14:56:45 +0200

Thomas Narten wrote:
...
> In my experience, the dialog

A side comment (hence I've deleted the rest of Thomas' message).

This is absolutely true, and it's a direct consequence of respect
for the strict confidentiality of the NomCom's deliberations.
I don't think the CB should have a high-bandwidth debate with
the NomCom, for reasons that Mike StJ has already given.

  Brian