Re: SUMMARY: archiving of NOMCOM information

[Donald Eastlake 3rd <dee3@torque.pothole.com>]

A lot of this discussison seems to be devoid of reality to me.

First of all, all that has ever been archived by nomcom chairs that
chose to archive stuff, which not all did, was the email on the list.
But the nomcoms I have been involved with have done most of their work
and made most of their decisions during telephone conference calls and
there has never been, as far as I know, any recordings made of these
conference calls. Vague requirements to archive "the information and
deliberations" could mean anything. Do the occasional physical nomcom
meeting need to be videotaped and who is going to pay for that?

In fact, I would expect every participating nomcom member to maintain an
email archive during their term and I find it extremely implausible that
there would ever be any problem accessing this info during the nomcom's
term.

Recommending destruction at the end of the nomcoms term is the right
thing to do and is part of nomcom confidentiality. The longer stuff is
lying around, the more likely it is to be compromised, and thus make
some people reluctant to give the nomcom candid comments, due to
accident or otherwise.

But, in reality, the theory that the nomcom email would be unreachable
if every member destroyed their archive at the end of their term seems
to me implausible. Considering how many ISP and organization email
relays and servers the nomcom mail will have flowed through, even with
more organizations having email destruction policies, I suspect that for
years a determined effort could find old backup, spooled, or deleted but
recoverable copies.

Donald

On Fri, 29 Mar 2002, John Morris wrote:

> Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2002 16:07:58 -0500
> From: John Morris <jmorris@cdt.org>
> To: James M Galvin <galvin+ietf-nomcom@eListX.com>
> Cc: ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com
> Subject: Re: SUMMARY: archiving of NOMCOM information
>
> I think the "proposed consensus" language does not actually
> accomplish what is intended.  I realize that different (and perhaps
> clearer) language will be used in the actual revision to 2727, but it
> seems desirable to be clear at this stage about what consensus might
> exist.  The "proposed consensus" language is:
>
> >     PROPOSED CONSENSUS: The NOMCOM Chair and one or more NOMCOM voting
> >     members should maintain an archive of the information and
> >     deliberations of the NOMCOM for their term of service.  The archive
> >     can be used if the NOMCOM is called upon to fill a mid-term vacancy.
> >     At the end of the term of service all information is to be
> >     destroyed.
>
> The problem is with the phrase "term of service."  The current 2727
> does not clearly define the "term of service" of a NOMCOM member.
> The closest it comes to stating a term of service is in part (2) of
> Section 2, which states:
>
> >>    (2)  The annual selection and confirmation process is expected to be
> >>         completed within 3 months.
> >>
> >>       The annual selection and confirmation process is expected to be
> >>       completed one month prior to the friday of the week before the
> >>       First IETF.  It is expected to begin 4 months prior to the Friday
> >>       of the week before the First IETF.
> >>
>
> Thus suggests that the NOMCOM's "term of service" runs from about
> four months prior to the First IETF, and ends about one month prior.
> But the whole point of keeping an archive is to keep documents
> available for a period _after_ the end of the NOMCOM's normal work.
>
> There are two simple solutions to the problem:  Either the revised
> document can define "term of service" to extend beyond the normal
> work period of the NOMCOM, or the PROPOSED CONSENSUS can be revised
> to read something like:
>
>      PROPOSED CONSENSUS: The NOMCOM Chair and one or more NOMCOM voting
>      members should maintain an archive of the information and
>      deliberations of the NOMCOM UNTIL THE NEXT NOMCOM IS CREATED. The archive
>      can be used if the NOMCOM is called upon to fill AN INTERIM vacancy.
>      UPON THE CREATION OF A NEW NONCOM ANY ARCHIVES OF THE PRIOR NONCOM
>      SHALL BE DESTROYED.
>
> I think this more clearly states what has been discussed, and more
> clearly suggests the actually changes to be made to 2727.
>
> John
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------
> John Morris // CDT // http://www.cdt.org/standards
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription
> manager: <http://lists.elistx.com/subscribe>
>