Re: Selection Process

[Stephen D Crocker <[e-mail]>]

Frank,

Nice comments.  Let me add to yours.

Steve


>> 1. The term is advice and consent (not advise...).

Right.


>> 2. It was discussed quite a bit that the names of the people volunteering
>>    to make up the pool of potential recall-committee members would be
>>    gathered gathered ahead of time. I.e. a pool is kept so that when a
>>    committee is needed, the names are simply picked. There would be no
>>    need to put out a public call.

Keeping a pool is ok, but there should also be a public call.  The
recall process needs to be visible, and it will always involve a lot
of energy and emotion.  There needs to be a clear path for those who
are aggravated to jump into the fray.


>> 3. I assume that the ombudsman does not have the power to unilaterally
>>    dismiss a complaint. This ought to be mentioned -- just for warm
>>    and fuzzy feelings.

Yup.


>> 4. How do we deal with the situation where someone might bring an endless
>>    stream of complaints against one or more IETF/IAB/etc people? I can see
>>    the recent TAP/IDENT affair ending up this way -- where one aggreived
>>    member of the community would not be happy with anything short of the
>>    removal of Steve Crocker etc etc.

This does fall within the judgment of the ombudsman.  As always, if
someone is unhappy with his treatment within the system, he can -- and
will! -- go outside the system.  E-mail flames are cheap and obvious.


>>    We can always form the recall committee, have them immediately reject
>>    a complaint, disband, and repeat. This would be rather excessive and
>>    certainly time-wasting.

But potentially useful in extremis.


>>    As a possibility, might the ombudsman have the power to arbitrarily
>>    reject a complaint that is deemed to be a "repeat" of a previous
>>    complaint? This is, of course, completely at odds with point 3.
>>    This would be similar to the double-jeopardy amendment in the US
>>    Constitution.

I think this is the right thing, but instead of putting this level of
detail, let's include this in the SOP for the ombusdsman.  And maybe
there is a standard guideline somewhere for how to be an ombudsman so
we don't have to write our own.


>> 5. Ought there be some parameters described for the Recall
>>    Committee's meeting. Are they required to meet in person or can
>>    the meet electronically?  Can they call for information from the
>>    community at large? Are there deliberations kept coinfidential?
>>    If they meet in person, do they have public meetings or are they
>>    closed? Is there a time limit for how long they can examine an
>>    issue? None of these are critical. We ought to either explicitly
>>    answer them or explicitly state that the "parameters" of the
>>    committee are decided by the committee.
>> 
>>    These questions also apply to the nominating committee.

Other than stating that the aspects dealing with specific individuals
is confidential to protect the privacy the individuals, the rest
should be left to the committee.



>> 6. Is one nominating committee formed to cover all open positions at a
>>    given time or does each position get its own committee?

One committee.  When multiple positions are open, there might be some
interaction in the deliberations.  Even if there weren't interactions,
the overhead involved in having even one committee is a big drain on
the entire system.  Multiple committees would be a nightmare.

The committee can always decide to form subcommittees and/or seek
outside advice on one or more slots.