On 3/6/2013 3:14 PM, Sam Hartman wrote:
Jari, I could not disagree more. Evaluating community feedback on the
qualifications provided by the IESG is specifically the nomcom's
responsibility. It's quite clear the buck stops with the nomcom in RFC
3777 not with the IESG.
I shall quote the related sections of the RFc for you:
The nominating committee will be given the title of the positions
to be reviewed and a brief summary of the desired expertise of the
candidate that is nominated to fill each position.
...
12. The nominating committee selects candidates based on its
understanding of the IETF community's consensus of the
qualifications required to fill the open positions.
Sam,
Responding to this message of yours, from yesterday, based on the
clarification you just sent...
I understand that clarification to mean that you believe RFC 3777
authorizes Nomcom to formulate job requirements. Hence, you believe a
Nomcom errs if it operates from the view that it /must/ treat the IESG's
job descriptions as mandated by the IESG, rather than merely being advisory.
Unfortunately I don't interpret RFC 3777 the way you do, or at least I
think the current language permits the current operational model.
Above is the text you quoted that I think relevant. (I read the
remainder of the text you quoted as pertaining to more operational
issues, such as matching and reporting, rather than "formulating".)
The wiggle-room in RFC 3777 is in the first bit of text, above,
containing the word "desired", since that's a word that isn't as strong
as "required". However note that none of the language, above or
elsewhere in RFC 3777 explicitly assigns to Nomcom the authority to
define the requirements for an AD job.
So we have
a) an explicit statement that has the IESG saying what it wants,
b) no statement saying that Nomcom decides what it thinks the IESG
needs, and
c) 18 years of practice of Nomcoms deferring to the IESG, for
definition of job requirements.
I certainly agree that we have a practical problem with the current job
requirements, but I see the current authority for changing this as
residing with the IESG. Or IETF consensus (of course.)
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net
