Subject: Re: [ietf-nomcom] Fwd: Call for discussion of draft-dawkins-nomcom-3777-issues-00 (fwd)

From: James Galvin <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2008 14:34:01 +0100

This message of mine did not make it in to the archive....

-------- Forwarded Message --------
Date: Tuesday, July 29, 2008 10:56 AM +0100
From: James Galvin <[email-masked]>
To: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>, SM 
<[email-masked]>
Cc: NomComDiscussion <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ietf-nomcom] Fwd: Call for discussion	of 
	draft-dawkins-nomcom-3777-issues-00

-- On Monday, July 28, 2008 7:04 PM +1200 Brian E Carpenter
<[email-masked]> wrote regarding Re: [ietf-nomcom]
Fwd: Call for discussion	of	draft-dawkins-nomcom-3777-issues-00 --

> If (for example) the only valid reason for non-confirmation
> was a reasonable belief by the confirming body that the NomCom
> had used an unfair process or shown bias, then the information
> they would need is feedback from their liaison about the NomCom's
> process.
>
> If we extend the valid reasons for non-confirmation beyond that,
> they would need correspondingly more info.
>
> What I observe is that the two confirming bodies appear to take
> very different views of the answer to Eric's point.

I believe that given the status of privacy in the NOMCOM process,
this is the only possible interpretation of the confirmation
process.

However, I also believe it is reasonable for the confirming body to
ask questions about issues that concern it so that it can be
assured that the NOMCOM gave the issues due consideration.  To some
extent the liaisons may be able to answer the questions but I also
believe we should allow some judgment on the part of the NOMCOM to
answer questions for the confirming bodies.

Jim

-------- End Forwarded Message --------

_______________________________________________
ietf-nomcom mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-nomcom

---

From: James Galvin <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2008 14:34:56 +0100

-------- Forwarded Message --------
Date: Tuesday, July 29, 2008 11:35 AM +0100
From: James Galvin <[email-masked]>
To: Lakshminath Dondeti <[email-masked]>, SM 
<[email-masked]>

-- On Tuesday, July 29, 2008 1:39 AM -0700 Lakshminath Dondeti
<[email-masked]> wrote regarding Re: [ietf-nomcom] Fwd: Call
for discussion of draft-dawkins-nomcom-3777-issues-00 --

> It is an interesting exercise to think about what is "wrong" with
> a candidate.  Suppose a majority or for that matter the entire
> confirmation body thinks that a particular candidate is "wrong"
> for the position, but say that they also know from their liaison
> that the process was followed and the opinions of the
> confirmation body were taken into account (let's assume that they
> all provided their opinions on the said candidate to the nomcom)
> by the nomcom during the selection process.
>
> The question is "Should the confirming body confirm the candidate
> or not?"

I think the confirming body has to judge for itself the importance
or significance of what it things is "wrong" with the candidate.

>From a process point of view they should confirm the candidate.
After all, a set of their peers considered everything and made the
best decision it could.

However, from a check-and-balance point of view, they are well
within their rights to reject the candidate and to stand behind
that decision by requesting a review by an arbiter if the NOMCOM
does not wish to change its mind.

Jim