ietf-nomcom message

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [ietf-nomcom Home]

Subject: Re: IESG issues with draft-ietf-nomcom-rfc2727bis-07

I have taken the text of IESG comment and have broken it up into the specific issues and numbered them. I also added some discussion based on a review of some of the issues discussed by the WG on the list and in meetings and have added some questions that need to be answered in processing the issues. The questions are not meant to be a complete list, and do not include some possible follow up questions. I expect the detailed questions to evolve during the discussion. Also they are not meant to be a poll at this point, but rather an indication of recommended focus for discussions.
In order to keep this discussion clear, I ask that discussion of each issue be in a separate email and that the issue number be included in the subject line.
In order to complete the discussion in bounded time, I ask that the discussion period be limited to the next 2 weeks, ending 22 October. After that time, if a revision of the draft is required, it can, hopefully, still be submitted prior to the deadline for IETF58 submissions (27 October).
I have not yet requested a meeting slot at IETF58, but will consider doing so if we cannot close all of the issues in the next 2 weeks.
Issue 1-3 are 'showstopper" Issues that must be resolved before the document will be allowed to proceed. 

------------------
IESG Issue 1:
------------------


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.



History: This issue was not discussed

Questions:
Should it be mandatory that the required qualifications list be made public? 

 If not, should the required qualifications list be confidential?


------------------------------------------------------------------


-----------------
IESG Issue 2
-----------------

raised by Margaret Wasserman:



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.


Background:

The issue was first brought up
    http://lists.elistx.com/archives/ietf-nomcom/200303/msg00020.html
>>Insert in section 3 as paragraph 6 and renumber all subsequent paragraphs: 

"Nomcom-caused Mid-term Vacancies:
From time to time the Nomcom may propose moving a serving Area Director or IAB member from one position to another. (E.g. moving a Transport AD to cover O&M). If the serving member is at the end of their normal term there 
is no change in procedures. Otherwise, this is treated as a mid-term
vacancy and mid-term procedures are used with the following exceptions:
a) If the vacancy will occur on the IAB due to a move from the IAB to the IESG, the Nomcom may, upon confirmation of nominee/IAB member, submit for confirmation as part of the normal slate of candidates another nominee to complete the term of the departing IAB member. If the Nomcom declines to nominate a replacement as part of the annual process, the IAB may, at any time after the confirmation of the departing member, ask the Nomcom to fill 
the slot using mid-term procedures.
b) If the vacancy will occur on the IESG, either as a move to another IESG slot or as a move to the IAB, the Nomcom must use mid-term procedure rules. Most importantly, they must advertise the vacancy, and must consider all new candidates as equitably as any previously considered. The IESG chair is responsible for notifying the IETF Executive director of the vacancy and who in turn is responsible for asking the Nomcom select the replacement. The Nomcom is explicitly barred from proceeding without an explicit request from the IESG chair. The term of the nominee shall be for the remainder of 
the term of the vacated position."



The recommended text change was never discussed on the list.
The issue surrounding the 'poaching' issue was discussed but the discussion centered on the serialization described in 2727bis-07. However, none of the discussions were about the result of moving someone from a non open seat on the IESG to fill an IAB slot and thus having to fill an unannounced IESG slot. 

Questions:
Does the document need to be explicit about treating the replacement of an IESG member in an non open chair differently the the replacement of an IAB member in a non open seat?
Do full mid term replacement rules, including public announcement apply to this case? 




----------------------------------------------------------------


------------------
IESG Issue 3;
------------------

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.


Background:
This particular issue was never discussed, but the issue of confidentiality was frequently discussed in many different contexts. Section 10, Security, discusses the extension of confidentiality to those outside the Nomcom when necessary, though it is not explicit that this extension would also apply to the IAB, IESG or ISOC in the case of Nomcom operational issues.
I also note that in the text Thomas quoted, it does state that after reporting the Issues to the chair or committee they only escalate if ' they cannot resolve the issue between themselves'. It is, perhaps, implicit in this that they can and should discuss with the past chair. 

Questions:
Does content need to be added to the text to allow extension of confidentiality to the Liaison in the case of reporting issues having to do with the internal operations of the Nomcom?
Does content need to be added to explicitly state that liaisons should consult among themselves and with the past chair before escalating an issue to their respective I-groups?
----------------------------------------------------------------------- ---
Issue 4-26 are not considered 'showstoppers' but should be addressed before sending the document back to the IESG 


------------------
IESG Issue 4:
------------------


Steve Bellovin:
Comment:
The recall section makes no provision or even suggestion that the Recall Chair verify the putative signers.
Note: the Recall Chair would probably not be selected until there was a requirement for a recall committee and would probably be avaialble to verify the signatories. 

Questions:
Should text be added to clarify that signatories must be confirmed to be qualified members of the IETF community according to Nomcom selection rules?
If so, should it be done by the IETF Secretariat as is the case in verifying Nomcom volunteers. 

------------------
IESG Issue 5:
------------------
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.
Question: Should WG chairs be added to the list of those who should be consulted? 


-----------------
IESG Issue 6
-----------------



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, except
the IETF Chair whose roles as an IAB member and Area Director of the General Area is set out elsewhere".
Question: Should this text, or some other text, replace the current text in A2 



-----------------
IESG Issue 7
-----------------




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.


Questions:

Is a change to the text required to make the two situation consistent?


-----------------
IESG Issue 8
-----------------




       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...)



Questions:

Is the editorial change accepted?
Is text making it explicit that the maximum assignable term is 3 years needed? 

-----------------
IESG Issue 9
-----------------




       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.
Background: Section 4.3 indicates that non volunteers vote on all issues other then candidate selection. 

Questions:
Should the participation of the non volunteers in voting issues be made explicit? 

Should the non volunteers be excluded from voting on voting rules?

-----------------
IESG Issue 10
-----------------




       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.)
Background: While the document discusses the quorum that must be present for a vote, the actual voting mechanisms are to be be determined by the Nomcom itself.
Question: should text be added making an explicit rule for the voting in a Nomcom recall be specified in the document. 

-----------------
IESG Issue 11
-----------------




   4.  Confirmed candidates are expected to serve at least a 2 year
       term.


not consistent with interim appointments
Question: Should clarifying text indicate that the Confirmed candidates, chosen by the standard process, as opposed to mid term appointments, be expected to seve at least 2 years. 


-----------------
IESG Issue 12
-----------------




       First, when there is only one official nominating committee the


add comma after committee


Question: Is the editorial change accepted?

-----------------
IESG Issue 13
-----------------




       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


Question: Is the editorial change accepted?


-----------------
IESG Issue 14
-----------------





       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?)


Questions:

Is the editorial change accepted?
Is further explanation necessary indicating that the non volunteers participate in all votes except those dealing with candidate selection? 

-----------------
IESG Issue 15
-----------------




   6.  A Chair, in consultation with the Internet Society President,
       may appoint a temporary substitute.


Better to say "... for the Chair position".


Question: Is the editorial change accepted?

-----------------
IESG Issue 16
-----------------




       If they can not resolve the issue between themselves liaisons


comma after themselves.


Question: Is the editorial change accepted?

-----------------
IESG Issue 17
-----------------




       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.


Questions;

Is this an editorial or content change?

Is the change accepted?

-----------------
IESG Issue 18
-----------------




       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.


Question:   Is the more explicit rewording accepted?

-----------------
IESG Issue 19
-----------------



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.
Question: Should the discussion in Section 3 bullet 3, be expanded to include a discussion of why 1/2 at a time? 


-----------------
IESG Issue 20
-----------------


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".


Background:  this text was never discussed in the working group.


Question: Should the second sentence be removed or reworked?

-----------------
IESG Issue 21
-----------------



The section numbering in this document doesn't match usual
conventions.  This makes it harder to refer to sections in this
document unambiguously.
Question: Should the document be renumbered using a more conventional numbering scheme? 

-----------------
IESG Issue 22
-----------------




 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/
Discussion: Seems largely editorial. But the added precision does not make the English incorrect. Nor does its removal. 

question: Is the changed accepted.

-----------------
IESG Issue 23
-----------------




 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.


Same as issue 11

-----------------
IESG Issue 24
-----------------




     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.


Questions:
Should the question of starting time for IAB be separated from the question of IESG?
Should it be pointed out that since IAB members do not replace specific IAB members, it is consistent that new IAB members may overlap with retiring IAB members? 


-----------------
IESG Issue 25
-----------------


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.
Clarification: The first mention of the possible appointment of a Internet Society liaison is in 4.9 

There seem to be two issues here,
- an editorial one dealing with a forward reference and the fact that there may not be a ISOC liaison - an issue of whether the Nomcom procedures should specify how the ISOC Trustees choose a liaison if they decide to offer one. 

Possible remedy to the editorial issue:
- move the content of 4.9 into 4.3 and edit the text in 4.7 to add the phrase 'if one has been appointed', right after Trustees. 

Question: should this or some other change be made to the text?

 Discussion of the second issue:
Generally the rough consensus of the group was that the way the IAB or IESG made their decisions was not to be defined by this document (though there was significant discussion around the IAB role as a confirming body). Does this rough consensus also apply to the Internet Society Trustees should they decide to send a liaison? We should note that part of the reason Internet society Liaisons were made discretionary is that the IETF was not viewed as having the mandate to dictate actions to the Internet Society Trustees in its BCPs.
Question: Should text be added describing how the Internet Society Trustees pick their liaison, should they decide to send one? 

-----------------
IESG Issue 26
-----------------



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.




Question: Should the draft be restructured prior to resubmission?

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [ietf-nomcom Home]

Powered by eList eXpress LLC