Re: [ietf-nomcom] NomCom 2023 Extension of Nomination Period to 2023-10-12

[John C Klensin <[e-mail]>]

--On Friday, September 29, 2023 12:23 +1000 Martin Thomson
<[e-mail]> wrote:

> On Fri, Sep 29, 2023, at 05:28, John C Klensin wrote:
>> While I probably would not have phrased things that way Mike
>> did, I think it has been clear since the beginning of the
>> Nomcom model that job descriptions provided by the IESG or
>> other bodies are advisory to the Nomcom, not rigid
>> requirements.
> 
> This indicates to me some level of acceptance with the
> proposed course of action.

Maybe.   Or, if "some level" is stressed, yes, because one thing
about which I've seen no disagreements (and you aren't going to
get it from me) is that the the IESG has the authority to
rearrange Areas and their scope.  Viewed very narrowly and in
that light, the question is whether the IESG can move Francesca
from ART to the new Area or whether it creates the new area with
an empty slot for which Francesca (like any other member of the
community) can be a candidate.  If the Nomcom had the option and
chose to move her there --possibly based, not only on her
personal skills and interests, but on what the Nomcom concludes
it will do to AET, new appointees there, etc. -- then fine...
and the Nomcom presumably goes on  to fill the then
soon-to-be-vacant ART position.    If, instead, the Nomcom
decides to leaver her in ART, then there is a position in the
new Area to fill.

> The IESG have indicated, after community consultation, that
> they wish to adopt a new organizational structure that they
> believe will aid them in accomplishing the task they are
> entrusted with (make the IETF function effectively).

Yes, and whether I agree with that decision (or some of its
details) or not, I am not questioning their right to make that
decision.  If I seriously dislike the decision, my main option
is to give advice to the Nomcom about whether IESG members who
were most active in promoting it should be returned -- advice
the Nomcom can presumably weight as it deems appropriate.

> The NomCom have been given guidance on the sort of
> characteristics that people might need in order to help the
> IESG do that.  We will consider that guidance - along the
> input we receive from others in the community - in selecting
> an IESG slate to present to the IAB for confirmation.

And, again, I think that is just right so we are in agreement.

> I am interpreting Mike's concern as being grounded in a desire
> to avoid extreme outcomes if this process is left unchecked.
> Yes, if we had an IESG comprised solely of dog catching
> professionals, the Internet might suffer for it (might).  As
> established in this thread, these consultations, the
> confirmation process, and the NomCom process as a whole would
> seem to each act to as a remedy against that sort of extreme
> outcome.

ok, but I've interpreted Mike's comments and those of a few
others, including my own, as not questioning any of the above
but only as to whether a decision to move an AD from one role
(for which a prior Nomcom evaluated and selected them) to
another position.  We believe decisions about who occupies which
slots after the reorganization are Nomcom decisions and not IESG
ones.  FWIW, I believe that the reorganization might have been
described and announced in a way that would have had this
discussion be about Zahed's slot/ position rather than about
Francesca's and that would not have changed the argument
significantly.  The matter would remain that someone would be
taking on responsibilities for which they were not selected by a
Nomcom and I (at least) see that as problematic.

> On that note, I encourage people to please provide feedback to
> the NomCom about how you think we should be selecting people
> for these positions.

And that is precisely the option (and obligation) I am trying to
preserve by arguing that the new position created by the new
area should be treated as a new/ vacant position and not an
IESG-managed move of an AD from one Area to another, a move
that, as things are now specified, does not allow
candidate-specific input from either the community or the Nomcom.

best,
   john