Re: Proposed set of issues

[Brian E Carpenter <brian@hursley.ibm.com>]

Avri,

I believe two points that arose in the recent discussions are
not covered

 - should the timescale be extended (by as much as one IETF,
   or by a few weeks) to allow for more consultation and for
   more effective review by the confirming bodies?

 - should the advice (referred to in your very last paragraph)
   include specific guidance about balance (geography, skills,...)
   and about continuity versus turnover?

      Brian
 
avri wrote:
> 
> The design team has been working on the first WG deliverable:
> 
> May 02  Initial set of issues to be addressed selected
> 
> The following is the list of topics as currently understood.
> These topics are based on review of the Agenda as it was
> previously presented and on the discussions that have been
> held on this list over the last months.
> 
> Working group members are asked to please review this list
> and to comment. Please indicate if there are additions,
> deletions or modifications that should be considered.
> 
> Once reviewed and modified as necessary by the WG, this
> list becomes the initial set of issues the design team will
> address. It is important for the members of the WG to voice
> their opinions on the individual issues. Many opinions on these
> issues have already been expressed in earlier discussions. The
> design team will be using that content as well as new discussions
> to meet the next milestone:
> 
> Jun 02   Revised I-D published
> 
> This version will then become the focus of further
> discussions and refinements both on the list and in Yokohama.
> 
> It is important to mention that just because a topic shows
> up on the list does not necessarily mean a change is
> required in 2727bis. It is quite possible that after an
> exhaustive discussion it will be determined by the WG that a
> particular issue is best left as it is currently documented.
> 
> Thanks
> 
> a.
> 
> ----------------------------------
> 
>   --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> In reviewing the issues facing the this Working Group they can be
> grouped into several categories.    The categories and the topics that
> belong to that category are:
> 
> 1. Accountability
> 
> The NomCom needs to be accountable to the IETF community through the
> approving bodies.  Several methods of making the NomCom more
> accountable have been suggested and need to be reviewed:
> 
> - Should the NomCom publish a list of nominees at any point during the
>   process?  If yes, then when and how?
> 
> - Should the slate of candidates be presented to the confirming bodies
>   with supporting documentation?  Is yes, what documentation?
> 
> - Should the ISOC president be able to audit the process in order to
>   investigate any alleged improprieties?  Is yes, how should the audit
>   process be organized?
> 
> - Should there be an automatic timeout for approval once the
>   candidates have been presented to the confirming bodies.
> 
> - Do the liaisons have a specific role  relative to accountability?
> 
> 2. Liaison
> 
> - Should there be an ISOC liaison?
> 
> - What is the role of a liaison?
> 
> 3. Process Issues
> 
> - Should NomCom information be archived?  If so, for how long and in
>   what manner?  Is there a need to get legal advise on the issue of
>   information archival?
> 
> - A definition of sitting member of NomCom was added to 2727bis
>   section 1.  Is this definition appropriate?
> 
> - A timeframe for the appointment of the NomCom Chair was made
>   explicit in 2727bis section 3.2.  Is this timeframe appropriate?
> 
> - Explicit guidance regarding the timeframe for volunteering to serve
>   on the nominating committee was added to section 3.4.  Is this
>   guidance appropriate?
> 
> - Should the dates for selection of NomCom members be made explicit?
> 
> - Explicit guidance was added to the process of selection the
>   nominating committee member to 2727bis in sections 3.6, 3.7.  Is
>   this guidance appropriate?
> 
> - How should disputes regard the selection of NomCom members be
>   handled?
> 
> - On which lists should NomCom announcements be made?
> 
> - Should text be added to the process for recalling a NomCom member?
> 
> - Is clarification needed for handling an interim vacancy that occurs
>   late in a sitting NomCom's term; i.e. while the new NomCom is being
>   formed?
> 
> - Should there be a required set of information provided with a
>   nomination?
> 
> - Should a nominee be required to update contact information during
>   the process?
> 
> 4. Qualifications for selection for the IAB or IESG?
> 
> - Should there be term limits for the IAB or IESG?
> 
> - Should ADs have experience as WG chairs?
> 
> - Can a person, other then the IETF chair, serve on both the IAB and
>   the IESG concurrently. (Note: This is not the process question
>   involved in short term concurrent service by someone moving from one
>   body to the other.)
> 
> General Comment:
> 
> In posing the questions there is no presumption made about whether the
> proper resolution of an issue is inclusion in the document or not.
> For those items where rough consensus is reached for inclusion, it
> will need to be determined whether the item is to be included as a
> rule or as guidance.
> 
> Should a section on advice covering procedural issues, process,
> criteria and the general accumulated wisdom of previous NomComs be
> included in the RFC?  Or should this information be collected in a
> different manner?  If so, in what manner should it be collected?