At 03:05 PM 3/8/2013, Eric Gray wrote: >Actually, Joel is not to blame for my understanding. Sorry to say, I did not >read his report. > >My understanding comes at least in part from the oxymoronic "oral >Traditions" written in an >Appendix in RFC 3777. > >-- >E
I've included that section in its entirety below. Where in that section does it say that the confirming body must confirm or reject a slate? Or if you mean "balance" - where in that section does it say the IESG balance is even desirable? (Yup - the below specifically says "IAB" balance because the members of the IAB are at-large members rather than assigned a specific role link the IESG members). Or was there another section of 3777 that you might have gotten your impression from? Mike > >Appendix A. Oral Tradition > > > > > > Over the years various nominating committees have learned through > oral tradition passed on by liaisons that there are certain > consistencies in the process and information considered during > deliberations. Some items from that oral tradition are collected > here to facilitate its consideration by future nominating committees. > > 1. It has been found that experience as an IETF Working Group Chair > or an IRTF Research Group Chair is helpful in giving a nominee > experience of what the job of an Area Director involves. It also > helps a nominating committee judge the technical, people, and > process management skills of the nominee. > > 2. No person should serve both on the IAB and as an Area Director, > except the IETF Chair whose roles as an IAB member and Area > Director of the General Area are set out elsewhere. > > 3. The strength of the IAB is found in part in the balance of the > demographics of its members (e.g., national distribution, years > of experience, gender, etc.), the combined skill set of its > members, and the combined sectors (e.g., industry, academia, > etc.) represented by its members. > > 4. There are no term limits explicitly because the issue of > continuity versus turnover should be evaluated each year > according to the expectations of the IETF community, as it is > understood by each nominating committee. > > 5. The number of nominating committee members with the same primary > affiliation is limited in order to avoid the appearance of > improper bias in choosing the leadership of the IETF. Rather > than defining precise rules for how to define "affiliation", the > IETF community depends on the honor and integrity of the > participants to make the process work. > >From: Michael StJohns [mailto:[email protected]] >Sent: Friday, March 08, 2013 2:57 PM >To: Eric Gray >Cc: [email protected] >Subject: RE: Nomcom is responsible for IESG qualifications >Importance: High > >At 02:15 PM 3/8/2013, Eric Gray wrote: > >Mike, > > Notwithstanding your greater direct NomCom experience, it > seems clear that our understanding >of both RFC 3777 and actual practice differs. > >Yup. And I think I found someone to blame. Joel (in his Nomcom report) >mentions a negotiation and agreement with the IAB to confirm or reject the >slate rather than individuals. My guess is that the oral history from that - >wrong - agreement has continued down the line (via the IAB and Past Chairs) >to the current day on both sides of the aisle. > >Please go back and review the bidding - especially the report done by Dondeti >for his Nomcom. At the end of it, look at the Issue 5 discussion. It is >clear that the "confirm the slate" interpretation and possible change to 3777 >was considered and rejected. > >The Nomcom has repeatedly fallen into this fallacy and has been aided and >abetted by the IAB. It needs to stop as it makes the actual process of >filling positions many times harder. I've been told privately that this isn't >a proximate cause of the current set of Transport AD issues, but I've also >been told privately that this shared delusion has caused much additional work >with out much additional benefit. > > >Mike > > > > >-- >Eric > >From: Michael StJohns [ mailto:[email protected]] >Sent: Thursday, March 07, 2013 7:06 PM >To: Eric Gray; <mailto:[email protected]>[email protected] >Subject: RE: Nomcom is responsible for IESG qualifications >Importance: High > >At 05:27 PM 3/7/2013, Eric Gray wrote: > >In addition to trying to guess what the "talent-set" requirement is for a >complete slate, the NomCom >also has to try to figure out balance on a lot of different dimensions. >Company-mix, representation >by regions, extra skills and/or tools each AD might bring to the table, etc. > >In fact, having worked through this, the single biggest dread a NomCom might >face is the potential >that the IAB may decide to exercise a line-item veto on nominated candidates - >either forcing the >NomCom to effectively start over, or giving the NomCom a clear indication that >their effort to come >up with a balanced slate was a complete waste of time. > > >I'm still trying to figure out where this "requirement" came from. It seems >to pop up in each and every nomcom, but is no where in RFC3777. > >The phrase in 3777 that is appropriate is: > > > > >The confirming body >may > >reject individual candidates, in >which > > case the >nominating > >committee must select alternate >candidates > > for the >rejected > >candidates. >Please note NOT an alternate slate, but an alternate candidate or candidates. >Confirmation is done per nominee, NOT per slate. The Nomcom MAY NOT start >over if one of its candidates is rejected. It MAY NOT pull the slate back. > >And this "line item veto" is the only veto available to the confirming body. > >Unfortunately, this phrase follows one of the more useless sections which has >(my opinion) caused no end of harm: > > > > >If some or none >of > >the candidates submitted to a >confirming > > body are confirmed, >the > >confirming body should communicate >with > > the nominating >committee > >both to explain the reason why all >the > > candidates were >not > >confirmed and to understand the >nominating > > committee's >rationale > >for its >candidates. > >The confirming body does not have a reason or reasons for why a candidate is >rejected, it has a vote or result rejecting that candidate. Individual >members of the confirming body have reasons, some or all of which they may or >may not care to state. The only thing the Nomcom should infer is that the >confirming body (or a sufficient portion thereof) did not agree with the >nomcom as to the suitability of that specific candidate for that specific >position and it should then try again. To put it succinctly, it's not the >process it's the person - the nomcom didn't do anything wrong, they just came >to a conclusion that the confirming body couldn't support and the Nomcom >should just move on to the next fully qualified candidate for that position. > >The nominations and confirmation process is not and should not be a >negotiation between the Nomcom and a confirming body. > >The Nomcom shouldn't spend it's time trying to craft the perfect slate of >candidates. It needs to put good people in each of the spots, and if you need >to sacrifice balance to attain that, then you sacrifice balance and move on. >In fact balance should only come into play when you have two fully qualified >people for a slot where it may make sense to take the lesser (but still fully >qualified) candidate to "balance" the slate. > >The Nomcom has a hard job - but it needs to do the job one position at a time >and not make its job harder. Pick the best qualified people and move on. > >I say this as a former Nomcom member, former Nomcom Chair and former Nomcom >past-chair. > >Mike > >ps - > >The difference between a engineer and a bureaucrat is that the engineer takes >large insolvable problems and breaks them down into solvable pieces, while the >bureaucrat takes solvable problems and combines them into large insolvable >masses. Each and every position to be filled is in someways a solvable >problem, but trying to find the absolute perfect combination of people (for >some value of perfect) is possibly close to intractable. > >
