Re: Final Call: accept incorporated comments

[todd glassey <todd.glassey@worldnet.att.net>]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert Elz" <kre@MUNNARI.OZ.AU>
To: "James M Galvin" <galvin+ietf-nomcom@eListX.com>
Cc: <ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com>; <poised@lists.tislabs.com>
Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2002 3:39 AM
Subject: Re: Final Call: accept incorporated comments


>     Date:        Wed, 13 Mar 2002 15:49:44 -0500 (EST)
>     From:        James M Galvin <galvin+ietf-nomcom@eListX.com>
>     Message-ID:
<Pine.BSF.4.43.0203131526270.24968-100000@three.elistx.com>
>
>
>   | If you agree with these changes do nothing.  If you disagree please
say
>   | so within the 2 weeks that start today.
>
> I disagree.
>
> Most of what is here is noise, and of no importance, but I cannot
> believe that anyone would seriously require ...
>
>   | >    7.  The Chair is responsible for ensuring all information related
to
>   | >        the selection and confirmation of candidates is archived with
the
>   | >        Internet Society President upon completion of the nominating
>   | >        committee's responsibilities.

They have to. The problem is that the term Archived is undefined. The
constraints regarding who has access and how the information is to be kept.

>
> The rationale explains that this is just a codification of existing
> practice, if that's correct, I am appalled.
>
> My understanding was that communications with the nomcom were supposed
> to be confidential.   That should mean that they go no further than the
> nomcom - not that they're to be archived for ever, for purposes that
> aren't explained.

This is not the FISA tribunal. Its the NomCom.

>
> Please delete this clause, and instead insert a clause requiring that
> all records of confidential input to the nomcom process be destroyed
> once the nomcom has been would up (which is when the next nomcom takes
over,
> not when the current one announces its nominations).

No - I disagree. All records of any types of communcations with anyone in an
official role MUST become part of the record.

>
> By that time, how or why the nomcom reached its decision is largely
> irrelevant - it is done, and complete, and the next one will be
considering
> a new set of problems.

Not as far as accountability goes.

>
> And less important, but still worthy of note ...
>
>   | >    13.  A candidate may not be confirmed to serve for both an IESG
and
>   | >         an IAB position concurrently.
>
> The IETF chair is a member of both the IESG and the IAB.
>
> and ...
>
>   | >         If the term of the sitting role does not end coincident with
the
>   | >         start of the term of the new role, the confirmed candidate
must
>   | >         choose exactly one role.
>
> For how long is that choice expected to last?   Do you intend to say
> "must vacate one position" - in which case, say that.   Or, do you mean
> "must choose one for the period until the duplication ends" (occasionally
> the IAB has decided to switch at the start of the IETF week, where the
> IESG always switches at the end of it, as I recall anyway).   Or do you
> mean "at any particular instant, one role must be chosen, but a different
> one can be chosen 5 seconds later".  What you have written isn't clear.
> Nor do I think this is in the slightest bit important to anything (but
> better no language than ambiguous language).

I want to put term limits on all sitting roles and appoitments. 2-4 years is
certainly enough one would think. The idea is to incourage participation and
by having the same people all the time run the WG's and act as the AD's
there is not as much new blood available for growth. Especially when those
in power resists any changes to the powerbase.

>
> kre
>
>