Re: Selection Process

Frank Kastenholz <kasten@ftp.com> Wed, 25 November 1992 15:07 UTC

Received: from ietf.nri.reston.va.us by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa04307; 25 Nov 92 10:07 EST
Received: from CNRI.RESTON.VA.US by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa04295; 25 Nov 92 10:07 EST
Received: from ietf.cnri.reston.va.us by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa11586; 25 Nov 92 10:07 EST
Received: from CNRI.RESTON.VA.US by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa04284; 25 Nov 92 10:07 EST
Received: from babyoil.ftp.com by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa11566; 25 Nov 92 10:07 EST
Received: by ftp.com id AA26002; Wed, 25 Nov 92 10:07:16 -0500
Date: Wed, 25 Nov 1992 10:07:16 -0500
Message-Id: <9211251507.AA26002@ftp.com>
To: carl@malamud.com
Subject: Re: Selection Process
Sender: ietf-archive-request@IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US
From: Frank Kastenholz <kasten@ftp.com>
Reply-To: kasten@ftp.com
Cc: poised@CNRI.Reston.VA.US

Carl

A couple of minor nits on your accountability note:

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

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.

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.

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.

   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.

   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.

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.

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

Otherwise, excellent job writing this all up. Thanks a lot.

--
Frank Kastenholz