Selecting leadership for process issues

[John C Klensin]

--On Tuesday, 03 December, 2002 14:34 -0500 RJ Atkinson
<rja@extremenetworks.com> wrote:

> On Tuesday, Dec 3, 2002, at 13:59 America/Montreal, John C
> Klensin wrote:
>> Hmm.  In other discussions, we have been told that Nomcoms
>> quite often makes fairly late assessments of possible
>> candidates and then goes recruiting.   To the extent that is
>> true, they might not know until March, or at least sometime
>> in January or February, either.   I don't object to having
>> the Nomcom make the choice, but, if our goal were primarily
>> to prevent the lead cat-herder in this effort from being
>> selected for the IESG or IAB, we can do it by applying the
>> same rule that is applied to the Nomcom itself.  I.e., no one
>> chosen can be a candidate for either an IAB or IESG position.
>> If that rule is applied, then we don't need the Nomcom to
>> make the selection (although that might still be desirable
>> for other reasons).
> 
> John,
> 
> 	As far as I know, there is no currently public visibility of
> the list of candidates for an IAB or IESG position.

Correct as far as I know.
 
> 	So this matter of which folks do have that data leads us
> *again* to the Nomcom as the selection body -- with Nomcom
> making a decision *soon*  (i.e. well before March) based on
> open nominations for this position, with Nomcom filtering out
> anyone who is a candidate for an IAB or IESG position from
> consideration for this position.
> 
> 	That is, nothing in Margaret's observation or my comment
> pushes the decision on this question out to March, as you
> seemed to be implying.

No, I wasn't worried about pushing this decision out.  I was
worried about a different race condition, based on the
assumption that the Nomcom may not know, accurately, today who
might be a candidate for an IAB or IESG position (since they can
add people to the candidate list up until the last minute).  So,
if we don't want this person to end up nominated to the IAB or
IESG, there are two ways to avoid that:

	* to have the nomcom make the selection, with the
	understanding that they are thereby removing someone
	from the pool of potential IAB or IESG candidates.
	
	* to tell anyone who "volunteers" for the position that,
	should he or she be selected, that selection will
	automatically remove him or her from the pool of
	potential IAB or IESG candidates.

The difference between the two is fairly subtle; I was just
noting that the latter model does not _require_ the nomcom to
make the selection of this person.  The first one clearly does,
for the reason you identify.

    john

> 
> Ran
>