Draft of NomCom Minuites

[Avri Doria <avri@acm.org>]

Draft of Minutes from nomCom Meeting at IETF55:

Notes taken by Elliot Lear
Meeting Chaired by Avri Doria

 (Note to be removed before sending to minutes@ietf.org:
 Slides currently at:
 http://www.cdt.luth.se/babylon/ietf55/nomcom-ietf55.pdf .ppt)


Jim Galvin discussed the differences between
draft-ietf-nomcom-rfc2727bis-01.txt and -02

Several Issues were brought up during this discussion:

 One issue that was discussed was whether the definitions of the roles
 for advisors and liaisons reflected current practice or not.  There was
 a disagreement on this point between 2 previous NomCom chairs: Don
 Eastlake and Avri Doria.  Jim maintained that the current text reflects
 the intent of RFC2727.  The old version indicated explicitly who votes
 on what, while new version specifies that only voting volunteers vote on
 candidate issues and everything else is open to other members. The -02
 version lists explicit responsibilities of each role.  This is new text.
 The issue needs to be reviewed by the WG list.

 Phil Roberts brought up an issue about filling replacements.
 The current random selection process is renewable, but needs
 clarification about how to reinitiate the system.  Right now someone
 can figure out who the next choices would be.  Jim pointed out that
 this is covered in the -02 draft with an additional week to reset
 the random process.

 WG participants were asked to review the latest draft as it contains
 new language in many areas.

After the review of the -02 draft, open issues that had not yet been
resolved were discussed.

The first issue involved the qualification for volunteering with the
basic question being was attendance at 2 out 3 of the last IETF
meetings a sufficient criteria.

Comments:

 Joel Halpern observed that we seem to have a problem of not getting enough
 experienced IETF participants on the nomcom.  We need to encourage more
 participation.  He  didn't like the idea of 2 pools.  Maybe 4 out of 6 
IETF
 meeting would be better then 2 out of 3?

 Don Eastlake observed that a jury pool model would not work because
 the commitment involved was too substantial.

 Dave Allen commented in favor of allowing people who had attended many
 IETFs to be included, the big N proposal, even they did not meet the
 recent attendance requirements.  He further commented that the process
 could arbitrarily select people from one area in the same way it has it
 has selected people from one company.

 Mark Allman agreed that the 2 out of the last 3 rule is insufficient.
 Would like to see some weighting of rules for including management
 experience.  Would like to see something that has a little bit longer
 time scale.

 George Swallow commented that after 2 IETF meetings he didn't have a
 clue as to how the IETF was organized.

 Michael Richardson, currently on the NomCom, commented that the current
 NomCom doesn't suffer from lack of experience.  But if you've been to
 one, missed one, and then went to a third, then that's a different
 problem.  Things aren't all that broken.  He believes that self
 selection already occurs, based on whether people believe they know
 what's going on.

 Don Eastlake stated that as long as the nomcom has a finite number of
 volunteers there will always be some bias in some way or another.  It's
 okay for it to be imperfect.  Not sure he'd be happy with an IETF that
 ran purely smoothly.

 Harald suggested two changes:
  - add a statement to the oral tradition 'if you don't know how the IETF
    works don't volunteer for NomCom.
  - change from 2 out of 3 IETFs to 3 out of 5 IETFs

 A hum was requested on the 3 out of 5 versus of 2 out of 3.  The 3 out
 of 5 was the unanimous view of the room.

 John Klensin commented that there were 2 reasons to volunteer.
 1 is obligation.
 2 is that one has an ax to grind.
 He's worried about the "don't volunteer" folk self selecting out in
 favor of the ax grinders.

 A hum was requested on adding a statement to the oral tradition of
 "don't volunteer if you don't know what's going on."
 The group seemed to lean toward adding the statement.

 The chair reminded the meeting that a hum is just an indication.  This
 all goes out to the mailing list.

 Jim Galvin asked what goal is the group trying to achieve?

 Harald responded that since he made the suggestion he should say
 something.  One property of mailing list discussions is that they fly
 off in all directions.  It's easier to discuss when you have a specific
 proposal.  So he made a specific proposal.  The problems that is to be
 solved is that we want people who have more experience just than 6
 months participation volunteering for the NomCom.

 Eliot asked why 3 out of 5?  Why not 4 out of 6 or 5 out of 7, etc?

 Jim mentioned pool of people increases as you go from 2/3 to 3/5, etc.

 Avri responded that we don't really know that.

 George Swallow mentioned that though he hummed in favor of 3/5 he would
 also support requiring a minimum of having attended 5 meeting ever , AND
 attendance at 2 out of the last 3 meetings.

 Avri pointed out that this that would bias the selection procedure in
 favor of long time participants.

 Harald said we should ask the secretariat for numbers.

 Avri asked if the room favored adding a requirements for increased
 number of meeting attended in the past as George recommended.  The room
 was not in favor of the proposal.

 Ron Da Silva had a last comment regarding language stating that it's
 important to encourage people to understand the process.  He suggested
 that the oral tradition indicate where people could learn about the
 process and recommend that they then reconsider volunteering.

--
The next issue involved limiting the number of participants from a single
group or company

In the WG list discussions to date, there was no consensus on definition
of company, group, or organization, but but there seem to be consensus
that the maximum number should be 2.

Was a strict definition of control group necessary and should other
diversity or lack there of be considered?

The meeting reviewed some very legalistic language that had been
proposed on the list.

Comments:

 Michael Richardson thought that it seems like a good idea.
 Understanding that this would be done only at selection time, and that
 subsequent acquisitions or change of employment would not impact
 membership.

 Ross Callon asked if all the various wings of the U.S. or other
 governments would count as one organization.

 John Klensin commented that when ANSI went down this path for balloting,
 their first cut labeled the U.S. as a single entity, but that would have
 cut attendance to nothing.  Same issue involving large companies with
 separate divisions.

 Ross Callon likes the rule.  Doesn't mind U.S. government agencies
 being counted separately.

 Don Eastlake doesn't expect perfection.  It is unfortunate that we 
have to
 do something like this.  Where there appears to be substantial bias or the
 appearance such that people bend over backwards to avoid it, then public
 oversight is important.  If people try to game the system then people
 will notice.  When the pools were small, this was impossible.  If you
 have 100 volunteers where 10 or more are from the same company, the
 probability of 4 or more from the same company is 1.3%.  With multiple
 large companies, that probably increases to 5% or so.

 John Klensin is suspicious of measuring probability with reality.  We
 should say that packing behavior is inappropriate.  We should consider a
 mechanism for challenging a list of selected members, and a way to
 challenge the company to indicate whether it was packing or not.

 Jim Galvin responded there is in fact a one week challenge period after
 the announcement, but there is no process for actually challenging.

 Don Eastlake believes the criteria needs to be public and challengeable,
 but only for a brief period of time so that you have a stable nomcom.
 Not sure there is a corporate conspiracy, it's more word of
 mouth.  E.g. he works for a company that gives bonuses based on standards
 activity.  Perhaps there are companies who would remunerate based on
 their involvement.  Wants some sort of rule like what is proposed.

 John Klensin would prefer to rely on integrity of individuals.

 Steve Silverman asked "as a consultant, how does he fit in"?

 Avri responded one would state affiliation, so it's up to the individual,
 and is subject to challenge.

 Lou Berger commented we have an existence proof that community pressure
 does not work.  He seconds the rule.  No subjectivity to the proposal.
 No bias to particular organizations.

 Joel Halpern stated that there are other dimensions as to why we need
 such a rule.  If companies believe it is possible to pack the nomcom,
 then they will try in order to protect themselves.  And we need to make
 it clear that they can't.

 John Klensin completely agrees with Joel.  But he doesn't think this is
 the right solution.  He disagrees that public pressure doesn't work.
 We're creating lawyer bate through the limitation as it is worded.  If
 we introduce a formal procedure then the courts will decide.

 Harald said that at the time of volunteering a person states their
 affiliation, the person doing the picking rejects people who have the
 same string in their affiliation.  Put the onus on the individual, not
 on the process.  Joel says this proposal has too much detail, but agrees
 it should be made mechanical.

 Marshall Rose claimed that we've already crossed the lawyer bate
 threshold.

 Joel Halpern argued that John's point is valid, but that we can fix it
 by stating that this is a best effort and not perfect.

 John Klensin responded that if a company decides that it's in its
 corporate advantage to game the procedure, they will do it.  The rule is
 too fuzzy.  Get people to self identify, again putting the onus on the
 individual, and then use a challenge process.

 Eliot Lear was concerned about both the perception and the potential
 reality of a government packing the nomcom.  Depending on the
 administration of a government this could be the case.

 Jeff Hultzman stated it doesn't hurt us if more than 2 folk from the
 same government can't serve.  We're not ANSI.

 Avri stated that seems to be a consensus for some sort of a rule,
 choosing the middle path of having people self identify and remove
 themselves.  Asked if that was correct?

 Marshall Rose pointed out that there are 2 issues.
  - Level of formality.
  - Voluntary or mandatory removal.

 Don Eastlake said we need a rule that can be executed by a person, not
 a computer.

 Lou Berger said he was confused by the summary.  Informal or formal?  If
 formal, what's the enforcement mechanism?

 Avri said she believed legalistic language was more a problem than an
 advantage.

 Lou Berger said we ask the ISOC counsel to help us here.

 Avri asked if we want legal language?

 Lou Berger said we still need to ask the ISOC to review the language to
 keep us from getting into trouble.

 Harald informed the group that the language had been reviewed.

 Eliot added that once you have legalistic language, then you need
 lawyers to interpret it, and then you have blood in the water.

--

The next issue involved the question of whether there should  be a
process for resolving challenges over volunteer selection?

The current draft allows time is allowed for challenge
but does not indicate a specific process. Especially if control group
notion is added, challenges might be more likely.

The question is whether resolving any challenges should be left to
nomcom chair?

Comments:

 Jim Galvin responded that to be precise, there is no ADDITIONAL process.
 Anyone can move for a challenge, and they use the ordinary IETF appeals
 process, with the exception is that the challenge is to be directed at
 the IETF chair.  It's also worth noting, there's no defined time period
 for the IETF appeals process.

 Eliot Lear commented that maybe there should be some time frame.

 Marshall asked Harald how long would it take for him to resolve a
 challenge?

 Harald that it depends.  If the challenge was specious, up to 2 weeks.
 If it was a serious issue, it would be harder to bound.  There has never
 been a challenge to deal with.

 Marshall responded that we have a serious problem, because the IETF
 appeals process wasn't designed for this purpose.

 Harald said we might want to add language saying that makes it 
possible for
 the nomcom to operate with those who were not challenged.

 Jim pointed out that the NomCom is permitted to continue forward, but
 they cannot submit a slate to a confirming body while a challenge is in
 process.  Dispute resolution process has a time limit of 2 weeks.

 Avri pointed out that using the IESG means the possible candidates
 could become the judges in this process.

 Steve Coya suggested going right to the IETF chair and not involving
 the entire IESG.  Harald commented that he objects.

 Lou Berger suggested it go from the NomCom chair to the ISOC President.

 Jim Galvin suggested that the NomCom chair runs the process, so it would
 have to be the ISOC president that handled a challenge.

 Don Eastlake pointed out that it would not necessarily be an adversarial
 process in every case.  The chair should be given opportunity to correct
 mistakes.

 A Hum was in favor of Lou Berger's proposals.

---

The next issue involved mid term vacancy procedures

A new procedures has already been documented but has not seen much
discussion.  The new procedure involves a 3 month overlap for handling
midterm vacancy.  There would be no overlap for handling regular
process.

Comments:

 Scott Bradner noted that there is potential for a great deal of
 confusion. Perhaps it would be better for  a seat to sit idle.

 Harald mentioned that a possible vacancy of both members of an IESG area
 could be a serious problem.  In fact it would be disastrous to have 6
 month vacancies.

 Scott Bradner mentioned that the NomCom only acts when the IESG or IAB
 informs them of a vacancy.

 Jim responded that the IAB or IESG didn't have a choice as to which
 NomCom filled a vacancy.  But the IESG or IAB could choose to not to fill
 a vacancy by not informing the NomCom.

 Leslie Daigle pointed out that we must be mindful of what happened in
 the routing area last year.

 Jim Galvin agreed that we should have overlapping NomComs, but that is
 a slippery slope.

 Phil Roberts commented that if you have two NomComs going at the same
 time, one of which is filling a midterm vacancy and the other is filling
 the other vacancy in the same area, it seems strange, and this might
 lead to poor dynamics between the two people who are selected.  If you
 reconstitute a NomCom after they've gone dormant, there is more of a risk
 of having to find replacement volunteers.

 A hum was requested in favor of leaving wording of document as is. A
 hum was inconclusive about adding a restriction about serving in
 consecutive 15 month NomComs.

 Scott Bradner pointed out that question was perhaps confusing.

 Eliot Lear addressed Phil Roberts' point saying that hopefully the old
 NomCom would fill midterm vacancies prior to the new NomCom submits its
 slate.

---

The next topic concerned the recall procedure of IESG/IAB members, and
how it gets initiated

The current procedure is susceptible to DOS attack.  A mechanism needed
to protect against this is needed.  The proposal presented involved
requiring that 2% of average attendance sign a petition in order to
initiate the current recall procedure.

Comments:

 Don Eastlake thought the procedure should be 2% of number of QUALIFIED
 people according to the 2 out of 3 meetings rule, and that it should
 not be based only on attendance.

 Harald supported Don's change.

 John Klensin indicated that if we are going to have petition lists the
 list should be public.

 Steve Silverman asked if anyone had done this? [NO] He suggested that 3
 people instead of one, would be ok.  But questioned requiring 40?

 Marshall explained that this procedure was as added as a last minute
 afterthought.  Surprising no one has invoked it.

 Harald asked how many people are needed?  Thinking about the end game,
 is there a situation where someone should be removed from office without
 40 people being able to agree. Should you really want to have that
 person removed?

 David Puzzalo liked the proposal but wanted to check that one could not
 do it by getting "40 high school friends".

 Avri pointed out that the proposal called for the petition signers to be
 qualified to serve on the NomCom

 A hum was generally in favor of the proposal


The meeting was adjourned.

--