[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [ietf-nomcom Home]
Subject: IESG issues with draft-ietf-nomcom-rfc2727bis-07
The IESG on October 2 evaluated the nomcom document.It found a number of details that may need to be fixed, and three substantive issue that it seems to the IESG that it is necessary to fix.
The first 2 substantive issue was raised by Margaret Wasserman: -------------------------------------------------------------
In section 2:
The nominating committee will be given the title of the positions
to be reviewed and a brief description of the desirable set of
qualifications of the candidate that is nominated to fill each
position.
Is this information sent publicly or privately? There are two issues here: 1) I think that the "description of the desirable set of qualifications" should be posted publicly, along with the list of open positions when the call for nominations is sent. 2) The IESG and IAB should know, unambiguously, whether or not the information will be publicly disseminated before providing it. ------------------------------------------------------------------
From section 3, subsection 8:
It is consistent with these rules for the announcements of a
resignation, of the existence of a mid-term vacancy, and of the
confirmed candidates to all occur at the same time as long as the
actual sequence of events that occurred did so in the following
order.
* The nominating committee completes the advice and consent
process for the candidate already sitting on another body.
* The newly confirmed candidate resigns from their current
position.
* The body with the new mid-term vacancy requests that the
nominating committee fill the position.
* The Executive Director of the IETF informs the nominating
committee of the mid-term vacancy.
* The nominating committee acts on the request to fill the
mid-term vacancy
This section indicates that a position may be vacated and filled without the community being notified that a position is open. IMO, no position should be filled without public notice that the position is open and a public call for nominations. I understand one shool of thought that says that this is okay for IAB positions during the normal selection cycle. Because IAB members don't have separate responsibilities, it _might_ be okay to pick 6 IAB members from a candidate pool for 5 open positions, for example. However, even in this case, the community might want to know if a person with a particular specialty/area of expertise was moving, so that folks with that type of expertise could be nominated. This section would also be problematic for IESG positions. This could arise in any case where one IESG position is filled by a sitting IESG member who is not up for renewal. For example, consider a situation where the IESG chair does not volunteer for another term and is replaced by a sitting IESG member who is not up for renewal. Even though there are two ADs for most areas, the ADs often divide up the area into logical sections, requiring different expertise for each position. There are also issues with filling any postition according to this section if it is applied to interim vacancies. For example, the nomcom should not be empowered to move an IAB member to the IESG to fill and interim vacancy and replace the IAB member without making a public call for nominations for the open IAB position. ---------------------------------------------------------------- The third substantive issue was raised by Thomas Narten:
Liaisons from the IESG, IAB, and Internet Society Board of
Trustees are expected to review the operation and executing
process of the nominating committee and to report any concerns
or issues to the Chair of the nominating committee immediately.
If they can not resolve the issue between themselves liaisons
must report the issue to their respective bodies. If their
respective body agrees that there is an issue the liaison must
report it according to the dispute resolution process stated
elsewhere in this document.
I worry that there will be problems with the above in practice. In particular, the text requires that a liaison report problems back to their respective group (i.e., IESG or IAB) before invoking the formal dispute resolution mechanism. But confidentiality rules rather limit what the liaison can say to their body, and in the case where dispute resolution may need invoking, it seems like details will be important. I worry that this will create problems in practice, with it being unclear what can be said. And if that is the case, it is unclear what value the discussion within the respective I* would actually have. This is perhaps more a problem for the IESG, since it has no confirming role, but it seems like a general issue. There are ways of dealing with this, but I'm not sure what is best or what the WG might think. Some initial thoughts: - I note that the current wording doesn't mention the obvious, i.e., have the liaisons and previous chair get together and discuss before escalating. One could also have the liaison (independently) decide whether to formally appeal after such a consultation. This avoids the confidentiality issue and would seem like a necessary check as part of escalating issues. - add some wording saying that confidentiality rules allow sharing of info as needed to assess whether to file a formal complaint. --------------------------------------------------------------------I think these needs to be discussed in the WG, and that they need to either have new text crafted or a justification for the current choices given.
The more-or-less minor issues can be found in the ID tracker: <https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/pidtracker.cgi?command=view_id&dTag=90 01&rfc_flag=0> and are also given below in raw format.These are, in the opinion of the IESG, "non-show-stopper" issues - not things that are critical enough to block/delay publication of the document on their own, but important enough to be worth mentioning, in case they can be quickly fixed while the document is "open". It is up to the WG what to do with these.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------- Steve Bellovin: Comment:The recall section makes no provision or even suggestion that the Recall Chair verify the putative signers.
Section 5, Point 12 suggests that the committee consult with the sitting members of the IAB and IESG. I think that consultation with WG chairs should be suggested.
Ted Hardie: Comment:I note that the oral tradition section indicates that no person should serve on both the IESG and IAB, except the IETF Chair who serves on both by
definition. I believe that there is some lack of clarity on whether the IAB Chair's role ex officio in the IESG means she "serves on", and that this is probably not the place to resolve that or go into the liaisons from one body to the other. To capture the same thing, how about: "No person should serve both on the IAB and as an Area Director, exceptthe IETF Chair whose roles as an IAB member and Area Director of the General Area is set out elsewhere".
Thomas Narten: If a voting volunteer member is recalled the committee may
choose to proceed with only 9 voting volunteers at its own
discretion. In all other cases the Chair must repeat the random
selection process including an announcement of the iteration
prior to the actual selection as stated elsewhere in this
document.
The above implies to me that the nomcome is required to find a replacement for a resignation, but is not for a recall. Shouldn't the nomcom be allowed to also not replace resignations? I.e, I assume that the nomcom would have the option of filling or not filling any nomcom opening, regardless of how it occurs.
It is consistent with this rule for the nominating committee to
choose one or more of the currently open positions to which it
may assign a term greater than 2 years in order to ensure the
ideal application of this rule in the future.
s/greater than 2 years/of up to 3 years/ (right now, in theory, nomcom could pick the length of time, though I suspect a lot of folk would be surprised if this ever happend...)
committee. The addition must be approved by all members of the
committee according to its established voting mechanism.
Advisors participate as individuals.
"all members" wording implies everyone must agree. What is the intent here? Is it "must be approved by a quorum of the committee according to its established voting mechanism"? Note: similar wording appears elsewhere.
conducted. A member may recalled if at least a quorum of all
committee members agree, including the vote of the member being
recalled.
What does this mean? simple majority if there is a quorum? (I ask because in most cases this document doesn't proscribe rules, leaving that to the nomcom to decide.)
4. Confirmed candidates are expected to serve at least a 2 year
term.
not consistent with interim appointments
First, when there is only one official nominating committee the
add comma after committee
As of the publication of this document the current mechanism is
^
an email message to both the "ietf" and the "ietf-announce"
mailing lists.
comma above
None of the Chair, liaisons, or advisors vote on the selection
of candidates. They do vote on all other issues before the
committee unless otherwise specified.
s/specified/specified in this document/? (what is the intent?)
6. A Chair, in consultation with the Internet Society President,
may appoint a temporary substitute.
Better to say "... for the Chair position".
If they can not resolve the issue between themselves liaisons
comma after themselves.
The confirmation process must be completed at least one month
prior to the First IETF.
s/must/should/ other parts of the document imply should on this topic.
The term of a nominating committee begins when its members are
officially announced. The term ends at the Third IETF (not
three meetings) after the next nominating committee's term
begins.
ambigous wording. Reword:
The term ends at the Third IETF (not three meetings), that is,
the IETF after the next nominating committee's term begins.
Jon Peterson:
Comment:
The Introduction fastidiously notes that the organization of the IESG is
outside the scope of the document. However, in so far as Section 3 bullet 3
explains that half of the IESG positions are reviewed by the NomCom per
year, would it make sense to mention at a high level that IESG members
serve in specific Areas, and that the review process is staggered to
preserve continuity and institutional memory within Areas? This seems like
an important detail of the NomCom process to omit, even if it might change
as the IETF changes. I'd note that Section 3 bullet 3 already has a caveat
about future IESG reorganization, so I'm not sure how it would hurt to talk
about the current IESG structure, in the interests of fully depicting the
existing practice.
Margaret Wasserman: Comment: EDITORIAL:
Abstract The process by which the members of the IAB and IESG are selected, confirmed, and recalled is specified. This document is a self-consistent, organized compilation of the process as it was known at the time of publication.
Very weak... I also don't think that the last sentence is true, as this document changes some things. Suggestions: Add a bit more information (i.e mention the Nominations Commitee?) and remove "as it was known at the time of publication". The section numbering in this document doesn't match usual conventions. This makes it harder to refer to sections in this document unambiguously.
3. One-half of each of the then current IESG and IAB positions is
selected to be reviewed each year.
s/One-half of each of/One-half of/ s/positions is/positions are/
The intent of this rule to ensure the review of approximately
one-half of each of the IESG and IAB sitting members each year.
s/one-half of each of/one-half of/
4. Confirmed candidates are expected to serve at least a 2 year
term.
This isn't always true. Replacement candidates may serve terms of less than two years.
A term may begin or end no sooner than the
first day of the meeting and no later than the last day of the
meeting as determined by the mutual agreement of the currently
sitting member and the confirmed candidate. The confirmed
candidate's term may overlap the sitting member's term during the
meeting as determined by their mutual agreement.
How does this apply to IAB terms? In the case where there is more than one new IAB member, I don't think that it is defined which IAB member each new member is replacing.
In section 4, subsection 7:
Liaisons from the IESG, IAB, and Internet Society Board of
Trustees are expected to review the operation and executing
process of the nominating committee and to report any concerns
There is a mention here of a liaison from the ISOC board. But, there in section 4.3 there is a list of nomcom members that indicates how they are selected, and the ISOC liaison is not listed. The organization of this document seems to result in repeating a lot of information. There are also a lot of forward references. This makes it difficult to find the part(s) of the document that apply to a particular part of the process.
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [ietf-nomcom Home]
Powered by eList eXpress LLC