Re: Recommendations for closing open issues.

[Michael StJohns <mstjohns@mindspring.com>]

Hi Avri - comments in line.  Restricted to the mechanical deterministic 
issues rather than whether one approach or the other is better.

At 01:30 5/8/2003, Avri Doria wrote:

> On 1 April, a list of topics and recommendation from the
> design team was sent to this list for review and discussion.
>
> If I have counted correctly there have been 38 comments by 10
> people with 2 people accounting for 60% of the traffic.  I
> have tried to capture the rough consensus points in this list.
> there has also been and extensive and sometime lively discussion
> in the design team on these issues.
>
> On several issues, there was a fairly even split on the
> opinions.  In those cases, where there was a preexisting
> practice, a lack of consensus to change the practice
> was taken as an indication that the practice should remain
> as document in RFC2727.
>
> The following reflects actions to be taken in the document.
>
> A new draft should be out shortly for WG review.
>
>
>
> -------
> Issue 1
> -------
>
> Re: Discretion of the IAB or IESG over whether a midterm
> vacancies must be filled.
>
> 2727bis allegedly removed discretion for whether a mid-term
> vacancy should be filled by the NomCom.  This would have been
> a process change from previous practice.  There was no consensus
> for such a change.
>
> The discretion should remain with the body that looses a member.
> This means that the language for mid term vacancies should be
> clarified to indicate this.
>
> Essentially, from the NomCom point of view, a vacancy exists only
> when the ExDir informs it of a vacancy.  The resignation per se
> does not constitute such notification.
>
>
> -------
> Issue 2
> -------
> Re: Poaching rules
>
> It has been the practice of NomCom to not only choose candidates
> from mid-term sitting members of the other sitting body, but to
> nominate replacements for that person at the same time.
>
> The policy will be clarified based on the the fact
> that a vacancy does not exist until a resignation occurs and
> the ExDir notifies the NomCom that the vacancy does exist.
>
> There is, however, interest in keeping the process efficient.
> Therefore the following 2 stage process will be documented:
>
> 1. Once the candidate is confirmed he/she is advised to immediately
> resign from the prior post.  This resignation does not need to
> be made public immediately, nor does it need to take effect
> until a later time.  The NomCom is notified of the pending
> resignation by the ExDir.
> 2. The NomCom then nominates a candidate for the 'to be vacant'
> post.  Since the NomCom can predict this vacancy, it can be
> ready with a candidate.

Resolution Issue 1 conflicts with this resolution of issue 2.  This 
language implies the poached candidate is required to resign (which 
conflicts with the statements in issue 1).  If Issue 1 stands as stated, 
then the poached canidate CANNOT be advised to resign, the nomcom CANNOT 
predict the vacancy and SHOULD NOT take any action to fill it.  Either 
change 1 so that the poached candidate is REQUIRED to resign, or change 2 
so that it acknowledges the nomcom cannot a priori propose a candidate to 
fill a poached position for a mid-term poaching.

> -------
> Issue 3
> -------
>
> Re: Question of whether someone can be a member of both the IAB and
> the IESG
>
> This was discussed earlier in this WG process and the consensus
> was that while this is inadvisable, it should not be prohibited
> by rule. Advise was therefore inserted in the advice section stating
> that it was inadvisable and that is had never been done.
>
> While there have been some strong opinions voiced in the recent
> discussion that this should be prohibited by an explicit rule,
> there still does not seem to be a consensus for elevating it to
> a rule. It therefore remains as advice.

And 3 conflicts with 2.  Let's just make 2 go away and instead make sure 
the Nomcom knows it has to wait to be asked, it can't assume the position 
will become vacant.


> -------
> Issue 4
> -------
>
> Re. Question of whether the confirming body, CB,  is limited
> to reviewing only for process irregularities or can do a full
> review of candidates.
>
> The WG consensus appears to be in favor of a CB requirement
> for due diligence in its review of candidates.
> The document should reflect this.
>
> -------
> Issue 5
> -------
>
> Re: the question of reviewing a slate as whole or as individual
> candidates.
>
> In the past it was accepted that once the CB approved a candidate
> that candidate could not then be withdrawn by the Nomcom.
> The language of RFC2727  does not include the notion of a slate
> being submitted, but rather a list of individuals who are each judged
> and confirmed on their own separate merits.
>
> The latest version of 2727bis added the notion of a slate which
> has a coherence beyond simply being a list of individuals. New
> text made explicit the possibility of Nomcom revisiting the slate
> once submitted, including candidates who had already been confirmed,
> until such time as the entire slate had been approved.
>
> This change did not appear to receive WG consensus.  The lack of
> consensus warrants returning the process to the language of
> RFC2727 that deals with lists of individual candidates and which
> does not give the Nomcom the ability to withdraw candidates once
> they are approved by the CB.
>
> -------
> Issue 6
> -------
>
> Re. The rules under which the CB decides to accept or not
> accept a candidate should be strengthened from the RFC2727
> rule:
>       that at least one-half of the sitting
>       members agree with the decision.

Mechanically, this rule has two non-terminating states.  The state where 
1/2 agree to confirm and 1/2 agree not to confirm; and the state where less 
than 1/2 agree on anything (e.g. 1/3 agree to confirm, 1/3 agree not to 
confirm and 1/3 decide to abstain.  At a minimum this language should be 
change from "agree with the decision" to "agree to confirm".  Ideally 
"sitting members" should be changed to "qualified members" to cover the 
situation where one or more sitting members must disqualify themselves due 
to conflicts (e.g. Ted Hardie IAB member being considered for an IESG 
position - Ted doesn't get a vote).




> There was also a counter proposal that the rule should changed
> to leave the full discretion up to CB, i.e. the rule for one-half
> of sitting members be removed.
>
> While there were some strong opinions that a stronger dictate
> on the CB decision procedure was warranted, and some strong opinions
> that the CB should pick using a process of its own choosing without
> any predefined rules, there was no consensus for changing the language
> of RFC 2727.
>
> -------
> Issue 7
> -------
>
> Re: Is the IETF chair a sitting member of the IAB?
>
> The role of the IETF chair with regard to the IAB is
> defined in the IAB charter.  2727bis should refer to this
> language.
>
> There was no consensus for making any change to the IETF chair's
> role in 2727bis.
>
> --------
> Issue 8
> --------
>
> Re: Issue of succession rules for IETF Chair
>
> The WG was asked to include rules describing the process
> of succession for the IETF chair.
>
> There did not appear to be a consensus for adding such
> language to the text of the nomcom document.  Rather, there was 
> recommendation to IESG chair that the IESG charter should fix
> this.
>
> Otherwise this falls under normal midterm vacancy rules.  As
> with any other vacancy upon request of the IESG the ExDir
> informs the Nomcom of the vacancy and the IESG deals with the
> vacancy in its own fashion.
>
> There was no consensus for making a change to cover this in
> 2727bis.
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> I await the WG's comments.
>
>
> a.
>
>
>
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription
> manager: <http://lists.elistx.com/subscribe>