Re: Selection Process

["Barry M. Leiner" <[e-mail]>]

I want to strongly endorse Christian's comments regarding the selection
process.

Barry

> Return-Path: @CNRI.Reston.VA.US:[e-mail]
> Return-Path: <@CNRI.Reston.VA.US:[e-mail]>
> Received: Wed, 25 Nov 92 01:08:44 PST from IETF.nri.reston.VA.US
(IETF.CNRI.RESTON.VA.US) by nsipo.arc.nasa.gov (4.1/1.5)
> Received: from CNRI.RESTON.VA.US by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa00719;
>           25 Nov 92 3:54 EST
> Received: from mitsou.inria.fr by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa02218;
>           25 Nov 92 3:53 EST
> Received: by mitsou.inria.fr
> 	(5.65c/IDA-1.2.8) id AA05606; Wed, 25 Nov 1992 09:55:00 +0100
> Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
> To: Carl Malamud <[e-mail]>
> Cc: [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: Selection Process 
> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 24 Nov 92 18:18:18 EST."
>              <[e-mail]> 
> Date: Wed, 25 Nov 92 09:54:58 -0500
> From: 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