Re: Getting Started Again

[James M Galvin <galvin+ietf-nomcom@eListX.com>]

I guess it would have been better for me to include the latest agenda...

On Tue, 12 Mar 2002, James M Galvin wrote:

    Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2002 18:43:50 -0500 (EST)
    From: James M Galvin <galvin+ietf-nomcom@eListX.com>
    To: ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com
    Subject: Getting Started Again

    Discussions halted more than a month ago in deference to the active
    NOMCOM process.  Now that they have completed their task we should pick
    up the discussion of the revision to the Nominating Committee
    Procedures (RFC2727).

    There is no physical working group for this document and hence no
    meeting at this next or any IETF.  All work will be completed on this
    mailing list.  However, I will be at the IETF next week for anyone who
    wants to have a face-to-face discussion.

    The Agenda has grown by a few items since the last publication.  I'm
    sure there will be more items before we are done.  I've included a copy
    below.

    I'll start sending notes tomorrow about specific items to kick-off our
    discussions.

AGENDA (as of 3/12/2002)

a. ISOC liaison

b. Handling disputes regarding the selection of NOMCOM members

c. NOMCOM announcements to all IETF mailing lists

d. Clarifications to Recall Process

e. Clarify filling an interim vacancy very late in an existing NOMCOM
   cycle, i.e., new NOMCOM is currently being created and there is a
   vacancy to be filled

   e.1. Who sends out call for nominations?  Two calls seems confusing
        at best.

f. NOMCOM should retain information/documentation until the end of its
   cycle.



NEW AGENDA ITEMS SINCE 1/28/2002 (as of 3/12/2002)

g. Should there be term limits?

h. Should we relax the confidentiality requirement for *nominated*
   candidates?  The intent here is to facilitate getting comments from
   the community as it would permit announcements of all those who are
   to be considered.

i. Can we say more, perhaps more explicitly define the role of liaisons?
   In particular, is it reasonable for the NOMCOM to have deliberations
   explicitly in the absence of liaisons?  Perhaps the liaisons are
   really only needed early in the process to bring relevant experience
   and insight to be used by the NOMCOM?  Perhaps the liaisons should
   not be present during voting?



INCORPORATED - STILL OPEN FOR COMMENT (as of 3/12/2002)

   1.  A definition for "sitting member" was added.

   2.  An information retention policy was added requiring the Chair to
       submit a collection of all information related to the operation
       of and execution of the responsibilities of the nominating
       committee to the Internet Society President for long-term
       storage.  Previous Chairs have done this so the addition is just
       a formalization of existing practice.

   3.  A timeframe for the appointment of the Chair was added.  The
       timeframe could always be inferred from the text but to avoid
       confusion it is now explicitly stated.

   4.  Some explicit guidance was added regarding the timeframe for
       volunteering to serve on the nominating committee.

   5.  Some explicit guidance was added to the process of selecting the
       nominating committee members.  Among other things it must be
       possible to iterate the selection method more than just 10 times
       to ensure that unavailable or ineligible volunteers can be
       replaced.

   6.  It is now explicitly stated that no person may serve on both the
       IESG and the IAB concurrently.



COMPLETED (as of 3/12/2002)