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'm going to go out on a limb here and suggest the IESG approve this document as is with the understanding that the NomcomWG will continue to work on the issues identified.
Here's why - the substantive issues are ALL present in the current (2727) process and approving this document creates no additional problems. Indeed - this document fixes a number of problems that MUST be fixed sooner rather than later.
I'm going to go further out on a limb and suggest the IESG immediately refer the document to the RFC editor, and indicate to the Nomcom chair that this is the process to be followed for this cycle and that the ID will be considered authoritative for the process pending the publication of the RFC.
I realize this is out of the ordinary, but this process has been going on for a year and I don't think we can wait another year to fix the 2727 brokeness. 

Mike






At 11:13 10/7/2003, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:

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, except
the 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.

----------------------------------------------------------------
To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription
manager: <http://lists.elistx.com/subscribe>

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

Powered by eList eXpress LLC