Re: Selection Process

[Christian Huitema <[e-mail]>]

Carl,

Good job -- the draft certainly reflects the "sort of broad consensus" that what
reached at the IETF. I have two nits and two remarks.

1) Nit 1 -- Title:

Should be "SELECTION", not "SECTION".

2) Nit 2 -- Transition:

Mentioning the full dates, including Year=92/93, would be helpful.

3) Remark 1 -- jury and judges:

What is basically proposed is "selection by a jury". The basic characteristics of
such juries is that they are fair, but dont necessarily "know the rules". Presence
of a judge and some lawyers is, in that respect, essential. The current IAB
pre-selections are performed by a team of 3 IAB members, which are suppose to
chase for candidates, negociate, etc. I am almost sure that a jury picked by lot
would not be an efficient "chaser", although I am very confident that it would be
a very efficient "referee" -- asserting whether the process was fair, etc. The
original Craig/Frank proposal included more representatives from the IAB/IESG; I
think that a provision for more liaison members from the concerned bodies (perhaps
2 IAB + 2 IESG instead of 1 + 1) could be beneficial.

4) Remark 2 -- confidentiality:

The reviewing of candidates include reviewing of personalities and personal data.
It is essential that these personal data remain absolutely confidential. Even more
essential in fact in the case of evaluated but non selected candidates! Even their
names should remain confidential. Selection committee members should, at least,
sign some form of "non disclosure agreement" to that effect.

Christian Huitema