Re: WG Last Call

[James M Galvin <galvin@eListX.com>]

Speaking as Editor:


On Thu, 26 Jun 2003, Scott Bradner wrote:

    sec 4

       8.  The following rules apply if a candidate to be submitted to a
           confirming body is a sitting member of the IESG, IAB, or ISOC
           Board of Trustees, and the candidate is not serving in an open
           position being filled by the nominating committee.

    I do not think the above is all that easily parseable - I think what is
    being said is that the following rules apply if an continuing IAB member is
    being nominated for an IESG seat or if a continuing IESG member is being
    nominated for a different IESG seat or for a IAB seat.  - if so, can we say
    that? if not, can we say what is actually meant?

You are correct.  I will find some alternate words and run it through
the list here.



           The confirmation of a candidate to an open position does not
           automatically create a vacancy in the IESG or IAB position
           currently occupied by the candidate.  The mid-term vacancy
           can not exist until, first, the candidate formally resigns
           from the current position

    This text does not say that the individual MUST resign their "old"
    position.  The assumption is clearly in this and other sections but
    the doc does not clearly make the resignation a requirement.

You are correct and that is intentional.  There has been no consensus
suggesting that a person can not serve in two roles at the same time.
Many believe the NOMCOM would never nominate someone for two roles, but
"many" has not been determined to be consensus.  That is why the
"restriction" is only an "oral tradition" and the rest of the document
is vague and ambiguous.



    (other than some confusing text under Oral Tradition:
       2.  No person should ever be nominated to serve on both the IESG and
           the IAB concurrently; this does not apply to the IETF Chair who
           serves on both bodies by definition.

    this text could mean that I can not nominate an individual and say "this
    person should be an AD and an IAB member at the same time" or it could mean
    that a person should not be on both - but it is not clear - if it means the
    latter it should just say that "other than the IAB chair, no individual may
    service simultaneously on the IESG and IAB"

Yes, I see your point.  I meant to say the latter, more precisely:

        2. No person should serve on the IESG and IAB simultaneously,
           except the IETF Chair who serves on both bodies by
           definition.

And I will make the change as I have indicated.



    sec 5
       8.   Only the prior year's Chair may request the recall of the
            current Chair.

    but the last year's chair is not always on the nomcom (see 4.11) - maybe
    this needs to be 'the prior year's chair or the person sitting in his or
    her place'

It would probably be better to add some words in 4.11 that say that
the title "Prior Year's Chair" refers to the individual serving in that
role for the NOMCOM.  That would ensure it applies throughout the
document.



    sec 5
       11.  Any member of the IETF community may nominate any member of the
            IETF community for any open position, whose eligibility to serve
            will be confirmed by the nominating committee.

    why is the nominee limited to "the IETF community" (and what does that mean
    anyway?

The nominees are limited to the IETF community so that its leaders are
selected from within itself.

The term "IETF community" is intentionally undefined.



    sec 5 - 15
            Rejected nominees who consented to their nomination must be
            notified prior to announcing the confirmed candidates.  Rejected
            candidates must be notified prior to announcing the confirmed
            candidates.

    does the second part of this mean 'candidates rejected by the confirming
    body'?  if so - can it say that?

I believe that with a strict interpretation of the rules as documented
what you say would be correct.  However, a looser interpretation would
permit the NOMCOM to reject a candidate, also.

I am not opposed to making this change but I would prefer to hear if
others also believe it is necessary or good.

Jim