2nd Working Group Last call: 8 - 15 Aug 2003

[Avri Doria <avri@acm.org>]

Now that draft-ietf-nomcom-rfc2727bis-07.txt has ben released,
a 2nd WG last call is being held starting immediately and ending
Friday 15 August (any time zone) 2003.

This WG last call only involves changes made to the document
following the 1st WG last call.  The list of resolutions from the
1st WG last call that was sent out previously is appended below
for reference.

The draft can be found at:

http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-nomcom-rfc2727bis-07.txt


a.
------------------------------------------------------------------------ 
---------------

WGLC1-1: Sec 4 (8) Difficulty parsing the language.

Resolution:  Editorial change - new language to clarify

----------

WGLC1-2: Issue of whether a current IAB/IESG MUST resign
                when appointed to another job

Resolution:  While there is an oral tradition recommending
                    against this,  there was no consensus for making
                    a rule against it.

                    Language in oral tradition clarified to explicitly
                    recommend against the practice.

History:  Resolution of previous discussion in point 4.3 of:
             
http://lists.elistx.com/archives/ietf-nomcom/200210/msg00002.html

----------

WGLC1-3: Sec 5 (8) Text should read that 'the prior year's chair
                    or the person sitting in his or her place'  may  
request a
                    recall of the current chair.

Resolution: Definition of Prior year's chair extended to include
                    person taking the prior year's chair's seat.

----------

WGLC1-3: Sec 5 (11) Term "IETF Community" is ambiguous

resolution: Term has been in document RFC for several versions
                   and last call is not the best time to define new  
language.
                   Issue not considered a show stopper by commenter.
                   No change to document.

WGLC1-5:Sec 5 (15) Sentence restructure requested: write
                   'candidate rejected by the confirming body' instead  
of
                    'rejected candidates'.
                   Redundancy in written rule is problematic.

Resolution: Editorial change - fix language.

----------

WGLC1-6:Sec 1. Language of when the draft takes effect very
                   unclear and not specific as to how it is approved.

Resolution: Sentence removed.

----------

WGLC1-7: Sec 3 (7-3) Language left in regarding Confirming
                   Bodies consulting with Nomcom despite consensus
                   against such language.

Resolution: As this was an oversight, language will be corrected
                    as suggested on the list.

                  "The confirming bodies review their respective  
candidates,
                   they may at their descretion communicate with the
                   nominating committee, and then consent to some, all,  
or
                   none of the candidates."

----------

WGLC1-8: Sec 4 (15) comment that 3 out of 5 still leaves the
                    possibility that inexperienced attendees will end
                    up on the nomcom and need to be brought up to
                    speed at the expense of the process.  A  
recommendation
                    was made that would extend the rule to at least 4  
of the
                    last 8 IETF meetings and add the requirements that  
the
                    first  attendance must be at least 3 years prior to  
the date
                    on which the solicitation for nominating.

Resolution: This issue and many different variants for allowing for more
                     experience and longevity in the organization were  
discussed
                     at length earlier on the list and in the face to  
face meeting
                     in Atlanta. The consensus after discussing many  
possibilities
                     was to extend the model to the proposed 3 out of 5  
model plus
                     the note about the expectation that volunteers be  
familiar with
                     the IETF and processes and procedures.

                     As the issue was discussed in detail and consensus  
was
                     reached, it will not be reopened at this time.

History:  The issues as discussed on the list were summed up in:
             
http://lists.elistx.com/archives/ietf-nomcom/200211/msg00007.html
            The discussion was then taken into IETF55 were there was a
            unanimous hum in favor of the 3/5 rule.  Subsequent to  
this, the hum
            was reported on the list and there were extensive  
discussions about
            the number of eligible candidates following the the 2/3 and  
3/5 rules
            as this had been brought up as a question during IETF55.
            These was consensus on the list for the change to the 3/5  
rule.  The
            change was made in draft-ietf-nomcom-rfc2727bis-03.txt, and  
was
            announced on the list in:
             
http://lists.elistx.com/archives/ietf-nomcom/200302/msg00000.html
            Until the last call comment, there was no further  
discussion of this
            issue.