Brian E Carpenter wrote:
Hence what it showed me is that we need better statement of principles
and less effort to try to specify every problem and solution that
might ever occur.
I don't think that is inconsistent with the need for precision. It's
ambiguity that leads to problems - for example, ambiguity about who
resolves problems during the formation of NomCom.
I do not think that "ambiguity" is what caused the current problem.
Errors happen. Having an error in assessing who is a nomcom candidate
is actually a pretty simple -- ie, likely -- error.
So the issue is how the Nomcom chair deals with an error that is the
(I will of course include here the usual disclaimer that none of my
concerns are about the people involved. This entire thread is about
"principles". Principles have no ad hominem aspect.)
There seem to have been two principles at issue, this time:
1. The community needs to be able to review the list of
candidates for nomcom, prior to selection of nomcom members.
2. The nomcom is independent of the IESG and the IAB. Hence,
consultation with either of them, for deciding how to resolve nomcom
problems, creates an inherent conflict of interest.
In other words, being clear about openness and independence would
probably have caused things to have been handled quite differently.
That's not "precision", Brian.
It's not a listing of lots of precise (unambiguous) detail.
It is being clear about the basic concepts of the nomcom process.
Ietf mailing list