Re: Final Call: accept incorporated comments

[Robert Elz <kre@munnari.OZ.AU>]

    Date:        Thu, 14 Mar 2002 16:48:45 -0500 (EST)
    From:        James M Galvin <galvin+ietf-nomcom@eListX.com>
    Message-ID:  <Pine.BSF.4.43.0203141634390.27043-100000@three.elistx.com>

  | It is my recollection that this is necessary to legally protect all of
  | the NOMCOM participants, NOMCOM process, IETF, and ISOC.

Some archiving of what happened may be - making records of the "meetings"
that were held, who participated, etc, is most likely required, and certainly
harmless.  That is essentially meeting minutes.

Archiving *everything* that has gone on is impossible - no-one records
all the stray noises that happen during verbal conversations for example.
If you insist on archiving all the electronic communications, which is
what the draft seems to be saying, then you're disadvantaging those who
are unable to make comments to nomcom members in person.

It may be here that the problem I am complaining about is just that your 
wording for what should be archived is imprecise (or perhaps more
accurately, not what you intended).   But if things remain as the are,
I know there are a lot of comments that I would never make to the nomcom
in any electronic form (and recently, I haven't attended the December
IETF for some time, that's the only place I'm ever likely to bump into
a nomcom member, so no electronic comments implies no comments).

  | Assuming I'm not way off base I don't see a problem with asking the
  | IETF/ISOC counsel for a recommendation.  Of course I'd like to avoid an
  | "amateur lawyer" discussion if possible, so let's just get a
  | recommendation if that's what people want.

That's fine - but if that's to be done, let's make sure that we ask
the right question.   There's been way too many times when the IETF
has asked the wrong question, and so gotten an answer which would (I
believe) have been different had the right question been asked.   But
being a legal question, and the answer having come from a lawyer, it
has tended to be be treated as some kind of gospel, and unchallengeable.

Even ignoring the difficulty of getting an accurate response from a
single lawyer (other than seeking judgements from courts, there's not
a lot we can do about that) we have to make sure that we ask questions
that actually give us answers to the questions we need answered.

eg: if here we were to ask "how much should be archive?" the answer would
be "everything that you have" - there's no need to waste time asking if
that is to be the question.   That answer protects us, protects the lawyer,
and so is completely correct.

But, if instead we were to ask "how can we avoid archiving confidential
communications?" then we're asking for the information we need here.  If
the answer comes back "there's no way, they have to be archived", then
so be it.   But that can only be the answer if it is really correct - if
it isn't, we get to sue the lawyer for negligence, and lawyers don't like
that possibility.  So, it is far more likely that we'll get told what
really has to be archived, and what does not, if this is the question asked.

So, before involving lawyers, tell us all exactly what you plan on asking
them, so we can tell if it is worth the bother trying.

  | Yes, you could see it that way.  However, it's an ex officio role.

That just means that the IAB chair is a member because of their (!!)
position.  It has no bearing at all upon their role or status as a
member (other than that when they cease to be IETF chair, they cease to be
an IAB, and IESG, member as well - unless appointed to some other position
of course).

The IETF chair, is, and always has been (in the modern era anyway) an IAB
member.

[on dual IAB/IESG membership]
  | Do I correctly understand that you agree in principle with the intent
  | and object only to its expression?  As long as that's true I'll
  | wordsmith for the next draft.

I think its reasonable to not have people filling dual roles.  I'm not
sure that it is enough of a problem to be worthy of a fix - but nor do I
object if a fix does get included.

But before you go off wordsmithing - why not just tell us which fix to
the problem you actually intended (of the three I postulated, or perhaps
something different) - then we can see if we agree with that particular
method of fixing the problem, before you waste your time carefully
constructing something that no-one else agrees is the appropriate solution.

For this, take an example, let's say that X has been a member of the IESG,
and the nomcom has appointed a new IESG member, and made X a member of the
IAB.   Let's say that the IAB has decided that new members can take over
as from the start of the first IETF meeting (in particular, this may be to
allow retiring members to avoid having to attend the IETF, but that doesn't
matter), whereas the IESG wants a chance to wrap up its work during the IETF
meeting, and so is going to swap over after the IETF.

That would mean, that for the duration of the IETF, X is a member of both
the IESG and IAB - which is what your new text is supposed to avoid happening.

So, it could be, as the text was written, that at any instant, X gets
to choose "now I am speaking as an IAB member", or "now I am speaking as
an AD" - but cannot claim to be both at the same time.   That was one
possible interpretation.

Or it could be that for the IETF week, X has to say "I am going to ignore
my IAB appointment for this week, and continue as an IESG member", or
"I am not going to participate in the IESG for this week, I will be an
IAB member instead".  (And if this one is the one you mean, then you also
need to make it clear if X is allowed to change their (!! again !!) mind
during the period).

Or, it could be that having been appointed to both positions during the same
period, X needs to resign from one.   Resigning from the IESG would be not
much different from choosing not to participate in the IESG for the week,
except that technically, there'd be a casual vacancy that the (previous) nomcom
would have to fill for that week...   But if X wants to finish the week
with the IESG, maybe that beams that X has to resign from the IAB (before
even taking up the position) in order to do so.

So, did you mean one of those three, and if so, which, or something different?


kre