Subject: Re: Alternative (H2)

From: Robert Elz <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 01 Jun 2003 22:01:46 +0700

Date:        Sat, 31 May 2003 20:28:41 -0400
    From:        RJ Atkinson <[email-masked]>
    Message-ID:  <[email-masked]>

  | To try to be clear, in the English language as used in Virginia, where
  | I happen to live, "deadlock" has the meaning "not getting a decision".

This doesn't matter much, but for me, deadlock generally means that
something is preventing a decision being made, despite attempts to get
there, and would normally not include "sorry, we haven't even started yet".

But the latter is as much a (potential) problem for us.

  | 	My primary goal is to ensure that we get some decision,

Yes, that's what I thought, and that's what I think is the wrong approach.

Rather, what we should be doing is defining what happens when no decision
is obtained (no matter what reason), rather than attempting to arbitrarily
force one.   This is more general, simpler, and with less side issues to
deal with.

  | The problem we are fixing is a known *inability* to make a decision
  | in some cases.

Fine, but what about a possible unwillingness to make a decision.
While we're fixing it, now it has our attention, why not fix all cases?

  | If you really think you will persuade folks, a more productive approach
  | might be to post some specific proposed text (call it "J" maybe)
  | and see if others buy into that.

I sent proposed text several days ago (without the luxury of an appended
letter, but I think we can survive without that).

kre

---

From: RJ Atkinson <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 01 Jun 2003 11:27:40 -0400

> force one.   This is more general, simpler, and with less side issues 

H2 does precisely what you seem to wish, because it ensures that some 
decision
is obtained -- by defining what happens if the CB doesn't reach a 
conclusion
to confirm.  So the approaches appear to me to be identical in practice.

In particular, H2 says that if no decision is reached to confirm, the 
default
is to reject. Between a default of confirm or a default of reject, 
reasonable
people could make different choices, of course.

(I do believe that we are tripping over words here; the joys of 
different
dialects of English. :-(

> While we're fixing it, now it has our attention, why not fix all cases?

I believe that case is handled by H2 as it is.

> letter, but I think we can survive without that).

Please resend that proposed text (with or without letter) as I did not
see that note from you.  Feel free to send it privately if you prefer.

So far, to the extent I'm understanding your meaning, it appears that H2
does what you desire.  Hence I am confused somewhat by your comments.

Thanks,

Ran

---

From: Robert Elz <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 01 Jun 2003 22:54:15 +0700

Date:        Sun, 1 Jun 2003 11:27:40 -0400
    From:        RJ Atkinson <[email-masked]>
    Message-ID:  <[email-masked]>

  | H2 does precisely what you seem to wish, because it ensures that some 
  | decision is obtained -- by defining what happens if the CB doesn't reach a 
  | conclusion to confirm.

That isn't the way I read it.

        Regardless of which decision rule the confirming body uses, any
        candidate that is not confirmed under that rule must be rejected.

That, to me, leaves open the possibility of the rule not being
applied, that is "we haven't failed to confirm X, we just
haven't considered X yet".

  | Between a default of confirm or a default of reject, 
  | reasonable people could make different choices, of course.

Yes, in my initial suggested text, I said PQRSed, because at the
time I had no opinion which was better.

Since then I have decided that "default confirm" is the better
choice, as that means that the respect that a decision of the
nomcom should be offered is being retained - it should take a
positive decision of the confirming body to reject someone
(and it avoids one possibility of deadlock caused by a deadlocked
confirming body that simply won't approve anyone the nomcom sends
because of some internal conflict in that body).

  | (I do believe that we are tripping over words here; the joys of 
  | different dialects of English. :-(

Maybe.

  | Please resend that proposed text (with or without letter)
  | as I did not see that note from you.

OK, here it is (again) (with the PQRSed that was in the previous
version replaced by "confirmed").   Call it J if you like...

	4. The confirming body decides whether it confirms each candidate.
	   That decision must be made within a reasonable timeframe.
	   Failing a decision, the slate of candidates, or any candidate
	   not explicitly confirmed or rejected, will be considered to have
	   been confirmed.

Upon reflection (now), I'd probably actually just say (so call this one J
instead...)

	4. The confirming body decides whether it confirms each candidate.
	   That decision must be made and reported to the nominating
	   committee within a reasonable timeframe.   Failing a decision,
	   any candidate not explicitly confirmed or rejected, will be
	   considered to have been confirmed.

  | So far, to the extent I'm understanding your meaning, it appears that H2
  | does what you desire.  Hence I am confused somewhat by your comments.

H2 makes lots of assumptions that are unjustified.  It assumes that the
confirming body has "members", it assumes that it makes decisions by voting,
or by some other rule (that is, it assumes that it needs a rule for making
decisions) and more.   None of that is warranted, and none of it is necessary.

We just say to Z - please tell us if these people are OK.   Z says "yes" or
"no" or doesn't reply (within a reasonable timeframe) at all.   That's all
that matters to us.   Here, we're just trying to work out what happens in
the third of those cases - do do that we don't have to fictionalise a
decision from Z, we simply say that the candidate(s) are confirmed (or perhaps
rejected).

kre