[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [ietf-nomcom Home]
Subject: Re: Proposals for closing open issues
At 03:49 AM 11/6/2003, Avri Doria wrote:
The following are proposal for ways to close the Issues remaining open from the last call: 1, 2, 3, 10, 17, 24 In cases where there was a proposal made at some point in the process, that proposal has been brought forward. In a few cases where there was no specific proposal, one is suggested. These proposals, and any issues with those proposal that come on the list, will be discussed as part of the WG meeting in Minneapolis. thanks a. ------------------ 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? DISCUSSION SO FAR: 5 comments The information should not be confidential. It should be published.
Specifically, it should be published as part of the announcement information, rather than as part of the solicitation for nominations.
Rationale: While the information is important for the IETF participants to understand the choices, publishing it prior to the nomcom making a choice may result less than useful public discussion of that criteria and thrashing (as in "page thrashing") of the process.
Recommended wording change submitted on the list:
OLD NEW:
14. The Chair obtains the list of IESG and IAB positions to be
reviewed and a description of the desirable qualifications for
those positions. This information is announced, along with a
solicitation for names of volunteers from the IETF community
willing to serve on the nominating committee.
NEW:
14. The Chair obtains the list of IESG and IAB positions to be
reviewed and a description of the desirable qualifications for
those positions. This information is announced on
ietf-announce@ietf.org, along with a solicitation for names
of volunteers from the IETF community willing to serve on
the nominating committee.
Is this wording acceptable?
No - see above.
*********** Proposal: *********** Accept wording change originally proposed----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 vacancyThis 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? DISCUSSION SO FAR: 8 messages The existing text has been interpreted differently by different commentaries. This is an indication that no matter what the resolution on the substantive issue, the text needs to clarified. Several agree that the vacancy should be treated as a mid-term vacancy with announcement of the vacancy. There is an indication that the case filling an incomplete term IAB seat is different from filling an incomplete term IESG seat. There is an argument that it should not be difficult to move people into different positions and therefore the procedure should allow quasi-simultaneous filling of created openings. Several fixes were suggested: A. It is consistent with these rules for the Nominating Committee to nominate a sitting Area Director to a different Area and simultaneously nominate a new Area Director to the position thus vacated, or to nominate a sitting IAB member to an Area Director position and simultaneously nominate a new IAB member to the position thus vacated. Any other moves between positions must be treated as resignations that create mid-term vacancies. B. Fix: If the type of position (e.g. security AD) was advertised, the Nomcom can take action to fill it from the set of candidates it already has for that type of slot. If the type of position was not advertised (e.g. because it was an off year and there was only one of that type) it must not take action to fill it and it must treat it as a mid-term vacancy. However, once the candidate has accepted appointment to the new position and once the IAB has confirmed them and the announcement has been made, the Nomcom can immediately begin the process of selection for replacement. C. Other fix: Dual Membership on both the IAB and IESG is prohibited. A nominee who accepts appointment to one body automatically vacates their position on the other body not later than noon on the last of the First IETF meeting. As long as the to-be-vacated position type has been advertised, the Nomcom shall take action to fill it. Note: the issue of prohibiting dual membership was discussed previously in the WG and a decision was made to discourage but not prohibit. Status: This issue has not yet been resolved ********** Proposal ********** Accept language originally proposed. Specifically: "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."----------------------------------------------------------------
OK.
------------------ 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? DISCUSSION SO FAR: 1 comment Doing so would blur the lines in confidentiality. Recommendation that the clarification mentioned above be added to the text. ********** Proposal: ********** Old Text Liaisons from the IESG, IAB, and Internet Society Board of Trustees (if one was appointed) 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. New Text Liaisons from the IESG, IAB, and Internet Society Board of Trustees (if one was appointed) 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 the Chair in consultation with a sub-group composed of the liaisons cannot resolve the issue, then the Chair must report it according to the dispute resolution process stated elsewhere in this document.----------------------------------------------------------------------- ---Issue 4-26 are not considered 'showstoppers' but should be addressed before sending the document back to the IESG ----------------- 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. DISCUSSION SO FAR: 2 comments 2 answers of yes. - suggestion of 2/3 or majority - comment that 2/3 was too stringent. *********** Proposal: *********** Old Text Regardless of the circumstances, if individual committee members can not work out their differences between themselves, the entire committee may be called upon to discuss and review the circumstances. If a resolution is not forthcoming a vote may be conducted. A member may recalled if at least a quorum of all committee members agree, including the vote of the member being recalled. New Text Regardless of the circumstances, if individual committee members can not work out their differences between themselves, the entire committee may be called upon to discuss and review the circumstances. If a resolution is not forthcoming a vote may be conducted. A member may recalled if 2/3 of all committee members agree to the recall ----------------- 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? Answers so far: 2 - both answers: It is content not editorial - 1 answer: without change leaves situation open - 1 answer: intentionally left open Further discussion ? *********** Proposal: *********** Leave text as written. ----------------- 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? DISCUSSION SO FAR: 2 comments - 1 that the IAB should be a separate case and should happen at the end of the week - 1 that the current, flexible, "during the week" handoff be retained *********** Proposal: *********** Suggested change, also fixing the grammar nit: OLD: A member may recalled if at least a quorum of all committee members agree, including the vote of the member being recalled. NEW: A member may be recalled if at least a quorum of all committee members (defined above as 75%) vote for the recall.
*sigh* Still too ambiguous."A member may be recalled if at least 2/3 of the mandated members (i.e. the voting members, chair, past chair representative, IESG and IAB liaisons) minus the member under consideration for recall concur."
This gets around the case of trying to decide whether an invited attendee (e.g. this years ISOC liaison) gets a vote or not. 3/4 of 13 (10 + 4 -1) is 10 - that seems a bit high. 2/3 of 13 is going to be 9 - that's probably more reasonable.
---------------------------------------------------------------- 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