Hi Spencer, At 08:12 03-06-2009, Spencer Dawkins wrote:
Russ has provided AD feedback on this draft, almost all of which I would consider editorial/nits in nature, but he did come up with a question that led to another question in my mind, and I wanted feedback from the group before submitting openlist-04.In openlist-03 Section 6, Russ flagged this text (Russ's comments are prefaced by ">"):We note that (for example) the Internet Architecture Board publishes the nominee list for their representative to the Internet Society Board of Trustees, without apparent ill effects, but we are also willing to accept that a NomCom might consider nominees whose names have not been announced, for a variety of reasons, if this is the right thing to do, in NomCom's judgement.
This is more of a comment. We only have to look at the discussion of having an open list to see that opinions on "the right thing to do" is not shared by everyone. You could use:
We note that (for example) the Internet Architecture Board publishes the nominee list for their representative to the Internet Society Board of Trustees, without apparent ill effects, but we are also willing to accept that a NomCom might consider nominees whose names have not been announced.There is no need to say "for a variety of reasons" as none of these reasons are discussed. Obviously, NomCom will do it if it believes that it is the right thing to do.
I realize that this is not the normative part of the text, but the last bit raises a concern. Clarity is needed here. RFC 3777 says: None of the Chair, liaisons, or advisors vote on the selection of candidates. They do vote on all other issues before the committee unless otherwise specified in this document. So, are the Chair, liaisons, and advisors part of the NomCom's judgement here. I think that the document needs to be clear on this point. So, would such a decision be part of the "selection of candidates" or is it part of the process that includes the Chair, liaisons, and advisors in the voting pool.My take on this is that the judgement needs to be the judgement of the voting membership - I would be very uncomfortable with having a bunch of non-voting members overrule the voting membership to say that a nominee should be considered with no community feedback.
There isn't a voting and non-voting membership according to the quoted paragraph from RFC 3777. Whether the person votes depends on what's specified in RFC 3777. Considering nominees is part of the selection of candidates. Advisors don't get to vote on the "we note ..." paragraph.
BTW, do we have to keep the "we note" and the "we are willing" etc. throughout the document? Once this draft gets approved, it's not about what "the community are willing to accept". NomCom does their job and the community does not have any say. If the community doesn't like the way things were done, it can rewrite the "rules".
I could be wrong about this, of course, so I'm curious what others think.My question (based on Russ's question) is - in the actual normative section (Section 7), I had this related text:The NomCom may consider nominees without asking for community feedback.Does this need to include any reference to the judgement of either the voting membership or the entire membership of NomCom?
That's part of the selection of candidates. If there is any doubt, then you'll have to go and specify the "rules".
At 09:55 03-06-2009, Joel M. Halpern wrote:
I suspect that this gets into cases that are better left unspecified, and let the nomcom chair figure out what works depending upon the specific situation.
Agreed.
(The reason I don't think a rule is needed is that it is the chair's job to ensure that the liaisons do not unduly influence the actual selection. This case would clearly be an undue influence, and the chair would do what is necessary to avoid the problem.)
Yes. Regards,-sm
Note Well: Messages sent to this mailing list are the opinions of the senders and do not imply endorsement by the IETF.