Date: Tue, 7 Oct 2003 15:41:18 -0400
From: <Margaret.Wasserman@nokia.com>
Message-ID: <E320A8529CF07E4C967ECC2F380B0CF902353C90@bsebe001.americas.nokia.com>
Note, I have changed the Subject to better reflect the current
threading structure...
| 1) Providing a set of desirable qualifications is no longer
| optional. As far as I know, it hasn't been done in
| the past, so this is a new requirement.
It hasn't?
Really?
About 7-9 years ago (I forget when exactly) a problem arose, in exactly
this area, where there was a whole bunch of confusion as to just what it
was the IESG wanted in one of their open positions.
Back then, as the result of the IAB confirmation process which couldn't
understand what the nomcom had done or why, and only after a bunch of
ferreting around discovered that there had been some ambiguous messages
from the IESG to the nomcom about just what the person who filled a
particular position should be capable of.
The result of all of that was the text that is in 2727 - I'd be astounded
to learn that since then no-one had bothered to take any notice, and I
actually find it very hard to believe that that is the case.
If it is, then I am certainly not in the slightest surprised that the new
doc is making it clear that this is expected to be done, and in no way
optional.
| 2) The new document says who would provide this information
| and how it would be sent to the nomcom, which was not
| specified in RFC 2727:
Is this supposed to matter in some material way, or were you just pointing
out a technical difference?
| The list of positions is posted publicly along with the call for
| nominations. So, would this information (which will come in through
| the same channel, probably at the same time) also be posted publicly?
I agree with Scott's answer to Avri's question. Yes, of course it is.
How could anyone rationally imagine a job ad (which is essentially what
a call for nominations is - except no remuneration is being offered...)
in which there was no statement of what qualifications and abilities are
expected of those who might apply (or be nominated for) the job in question.
That information is essential.
| Not true. Under the new draft, the IAB and IESG are required to
| provide a set of desirable qualifications, and it is unclear whether
| that information will be distributed publicly or kept confidential.
They were supposed to be required, and I would have assumed just based
upon good sense, they would have been, supplying this information all
along. It is so inconceivable that anyone would want this information
to be considered confidential that I just assume no-one has bothered to
say that it should not be.
I'll leave the rest of the "posturing" for some other occasion...
kre