Re: IAB request for clarifications in RFC2727bis

[James M Galvin <galvin+ietf-nomcom@eListX.com>]

On Thu, 13 Mar 2003, Leslie Daigle wrote:

    James M Galvin wrote:

    > On Tue, 11 Mar 2003, Leslie Daigle wrote:
    >
    >     1/ An overall clarification is needed in terms of how to handle the
    >     mid-term transition of a member from one position to another.

    > The only real issue I see is one of timing.  Frankly, I don't believe we
    > need to document a specific sequence of events for this case.

    Timing is indeed the key issue.  For fun, why don't you document
    what you think is the appropriate sequence of events given
    the existing process?

The only timing issue I see is how to deal with confidentiality, which
becomes increasingly awkward as the number of people who know about the
transition increases.

Setting that aside for the moment, since you asked for a sequence of
events, something like this:

    NOMCOM needs to fill roleB-1
    NOMCOM wants person in roleA-2
    personA-2 agrees
    NOMCOM needs to fill roleA-2
        note that roleA-1 is presumably already being replaced

    at IETF personB-1 is asked to step down
    at IETF personA-2 resigns roleA-2, gets 2 year term in roleB-1
    at IETF new person gets roleA-2 for 1 year term
        personally, I think the NOMCOM could make a case to give this
        person a 3 year term because to force it with the rules all you
        need is for personA-2 to resign just before the IETF so the
        remaining term is more than 1 year.

If all the parties in this transaction know what's happening I still
don't see an issue.  The critical party of course is personB-1.  If
personB-1 does not know then that makes it awkward for a fair number of
people, including:

    personB-2 - who will be consulted on their partner
    the incumbent in roleA-1 assuming they will be re-nominated, since
        they will be consulted on their partner
    personA-2 - who now knows about their situation, the situation of
	personA-1, and the situation of personB-1

It's also important to keep in mind that although the NOMCOM can not
comment on any action in progress, there is nothing to prevent personA-2
from commenting about their own situation, e.g., "I am talking to the
NOMCOM about moving to roleB-1."  This is allowed by the rules.

In any case, I don't see how specifying exactly how this situation
should play out will fix the confidentiality problem.

If there's a deeper timing issue I'm missing it.

Jim