From ietf-nomcom-errors@lists.elistx.com Mon Feb 2 09:35:30 2004 Return-Path: Received: from FILTER-ELIST-DAEMON.eListX.com by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) id <0HSG00702OHULU@eListX.com> (original mail from dee3@torque.pothole.com); Mon, 02 Feb 2004 09:34:42 -0500 (EST) Received: from DIRECTORY-DAEMON.eListX.com by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) id <0HSG00701OHTLR@eListX.com> for ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com; Mon, 02 Feb 2004 09:34:41 -0500 (EST) Received: from zydeco.netbusters.com (zydeco.netbusters.com [66.92.86.178]) by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) with ESMTP id <0HSG0072DOHT2C@eListX.com> for ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com; Mon, 02 Feb 2004 09:34:41 -0500 (EST) Received: by zydeco.netbusters.com (Postfix, from userid 513) id 9A046B6672; Mon, 02 Feb 2004 14:34:08 +0000 (GMT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by zydeco.netbusters.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 986C47EC28 for ; Mon, 02 Feb 2004 09:34:08 -0500 (EST) Date: Mon, 02 Feb 2004 09:34:08 -0500 (EST) From: Donald Eastlake 3rd Subject: FWD: Please publish draft-eastlake-rfc2777bis-selection-03.txt X-X-Sender: dee3@zydeco.netbusters.com To: ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com Message-id: MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII List-Owner: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Help: , List-Id: ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Mon, 2 Feb 2004 09:32:23 -0500 (EST) From: Donald Eastlake 3rd To: iesg@ietf.org Cc: Donald.Eastlake@motorola.com, dee3@torque.pothole.com, ietf-secretary@ietf.org Subject: Please publish draft-eastlake-rfc2777bis-selection-03.txt Hi, draft-eastlake-rfc2777bis-selection-03.txt has incorporated all of the suggestions that came up in discussion in the "Operation of the IESG/IAB Nominating and Recall Committees (nomcom)" working group mailing list. I request that it be published as an individual submission Informational RFC. Thanks, Donald PS: I'll forward a copy of this message to the NOMCOM WG mailing list. ====================================================================== Donald E. Eastlake 3rd dee3@torque.pothole.com 155 Beaver Street +1-508-634-2066(h) +1-508-786-7554(w) Milford, MA 01757 USA Donald.Eastlake@motorola.com ---------------------------------------------------------------- To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription manager: From ietf-nomcom-errors@lists.elistx.com Mon Feb 16 09:05:01 2004 Return-Path: Received: from FILTER-ELIST-DAEMON.eListX.com by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) id <0HT600602K140R@eListX.com> (original mail from galvin+ietf-nomcom@elistx.com); Mon, 16 Feb 2004 08:55:52 -0500 (EST) Received: from DIRECTORY-DAEMON.eListX.com by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) id <0HT600601K140Q@eListX.com> for ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com; Mon, 16 Feb 2004 08:55:52 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost (one.elistx.com [209.116.252.130]) by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) with ESMTP id <0HT6002BCK13OL@eListX.com> for ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com; Mon, 16 Feb 2004 08:55:51 -0500 (EST) Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2004 08:53:35 -0500 (EST) From: James M Galvin Subject: draft-ietf-nomcom-rfc2727bis-09.txt X-X-Sender: galvin@three.elistx.com To: ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com Message-id: MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII List-Owner: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Help: , List-Id: Physical meetings have a way of making things happen.... A revision to the NOMCOM draft, as described by the last meeting minutes and subsequent discussion here, was submitted to internet-drafts. I expect it will appear soon. For those who want to get a headstart a copy may be found here: http://lists.elistx.com/archives/ietf-nomcom/draft-ietf-nomcom-rfc2727bis-09.txt I will send a "diff" file in my next message that will help those comparing the "-08" to "-09" to find the changes. I will also send a separate note to the list for each substantive change with old and new text. That should make it easier for folks to comment. Of course, please do comment on anything you believe needs attention. Thanks, Jim ---------------------------------------------------------------- To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription manager: From ietf-nomcom-errors@lists.elistx.com Mon Feb 16 09:05:06 2004 Return-Path: Received: from FILTER-ELIST-DAEMON.eListX.com by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) id <0HT600602K324F@eListX.com> (original mail from galvin+ietf-nomcom@elistx.com); Mon, 16 Feb 2004 08:57:02 -0500 (EST) Received: from DIRECTORY-DAEMON.eListX.com by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) id <0HT600601K324E@eListX.com> for ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com; Mon, 16 Feb 2004 08:57:02 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost (one.elistx.com [209.116.252.130]) by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) with ESMTP id <0HT6002C2K31OL@eListX.com> for ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com; Mon, 16 Feb 2004 08:57:02 -0500 (EST) Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2004 08:54:44 -0500 (EST) From: James M Galvin Subject: "diff" between version 8 and version 9 X-X-Sender: galvin@three.elistx.com To: ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com Message-id: MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII List-Owner: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Help: , List-Id: 235c235 < 1. The annual process is expected to be completed within 7 months. --- > 1. The completion of the annual process is due within 7 months. 237c237 < The annual process is expected to be completed one month prior to --- > The completion of the annual process is due one month prior to 274,276c274,275 < to be reviewed and a brief description of the desirable set of < qualifications of the candidate that is nominated to fill each < position. --- > to be reviewed and a brief summary of the desired expertise of > the candidate that is nominated to fill each position. 331,332d332 < confirmed. All confirmed candidate terms begin during the First < IETF meeting corresponding to the beginning of the term for which 341,342c341,346 < they were confirmed. Normally, the confirmed candidate's term < begins when the currently sitting member's term ends on the last --- > confirmed. All confirmed candidate terms begin during the First > IETF meeting corresponding to the beginning of the term for which > they were confirmed. > > For confirmed candidates of the IESG the terms begin no later > than when the currently sitting members' terms end on the last 346c350 < sitting member and the confirmed candidate. The confirmed --- > sitting member and the confirmed candidate. A confirmed 349a354,359 > For confirmed candidates of the IAB the terms overlap with the > terms of the sitting members for the entire week of the meeting. > > For candidates confirmed under the mid-term vacancy rules, the > term begins as soon as possible after the confirmation. > 363,366c373,376 < reconvening to fill the mid-term vacancy, then the candidate < selection and confirmation process is expected to be completed < within 6 weeks, with all other time periods otherwise unspecified < prorated accordingly. --- > reconvening to fill the mid-term vacancy, then the completion of > the candidate selection and confirmation process is due within 6 > weeks, with all other time periods otherwise unspecified prorated > accordingly. 414,415c423,424 < The IESG and IAB are responsible for providing a list of the < qualifications desired of the candidates selected for their --- > The IESG and IAB are responsible for providing summary of the > expertise desired of the candidates selected for their 417c426 < lists are to be provided to the nominating committee for its --- > summaries are provided to the nominating committee for its 420,421c429,432 < 2. The nominating committee selects candidates and advises each < confirming body of its respective candidates. --- > 2. The nominating committee selects candidates based on its > understanding of the IETF community's consensus of the > qualifications required and advises each confirming body of > its respective candidates. 483c497 < reasonable timeframe. The results from the confirming body --- > reasonable time frame. The results from the confirming body 486c500,509 < 8. The following rules apply to nominees who are currently sitting --- > 8. The following rules apply to candidates who are currently sitting 496c519,520 < the mid-term vacancy. --- > the mid-term vacancy according to the rules for a mid-term > vacancy documented elsewhere in this document. 501,509c525,528 < candidate is announced for the new position. --- > candidate is announced for the new position. The process, > according to rules set out elsewhere in this document, of filling > the seat vacated by the confirmed candidate may begin as soon as > the vacancy is publicly announced. 514,521c533,545 < respect to filling the open positions and then separately submit < a candidate to fill a mid-term vacancy. < < 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. --- > respect to filling the open positions and then separately proceed > with the task of filling the mid-term vacancy according to the > rules for a mid-term vacancy documented elsewhere in this > document. > > However, the following exception is permitted in the case where > the candidate for an open position is currently a sitting member > of the IAB. It is consistent with these rules for the > announcements of a resignation of a sitting member of the IAB and > of the confirmed candidate for the mid-term vacancy created by > that sitting member on the IAB to all occur at the same time as > long as the actual sequence of events that occurred did so in the > following order. 524c548,549 < process for the candidate already sitting on another body. --- > process for the open position being filled by the candidate > currently sitting on the IAB. 527c552 < position. --- > position on the IAB. 529c554 < * The body with the new mid-term vacancy requests that the --- > * The IAB with the new mid-term vacancy requests that the 536c569 < mid-term vacancy --- > mid-term vacancy. 570,572c626,627 < 1. The process of selecting and organizing the members of the < nominating committee is expected to be completed within 3 < months. --- > 1. The completion of the process of selecting and organizing the > members of the nominating committee is due within 3 months. 574,575c629,630 < The selection and organization process must be completed at < least one month prior to the Third IETF. This ensures the --- > The completion of the selection and organization process is due > at least one month prior to the Third IETF. This ensures the 612a668 > volunteers, 3 liaisons, and an advisor. 688,692c740,744 < The appointment must be completed no later than the Second IETF < meeting to ensure it can be announced during a plenary session < at that meeting. The appointment must be completed as soon as < necessary to ensure the annual process can complete at the time < specified elsewhere in this document. --- > The appointment is due no later than the Second IETF meeting to > ensure it can be announced during a plenary session at that > meeting. The completion of the appointment is necessary to > ensure the annual process can complete at the time specified > elsewhere in this document. 724a777,780 > 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 733,736d788 < 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 738,741c790,791 < 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. --- > between themselves, liaisons must report it according to the > dispute resolution process stated elsewhere in this document. 813,815c860,862 < process must be completed. The Chair must establish a set of < milestones which, if met in a timely fashion, will result in the < completion of the process on time. --- > process is due to be completed. The Chair must establish a set > of milestones which, if met in a timely fashion, will result in > the completion of the process on time. 1038,1039c1094,1095 < 2. The process of selecting candidates to be confirmed by their < respective confirming body is expected to be completed within 3 --- > 2. The completion of the process of selecting candidates to be > confirmed by their respective confirming body is due within 3 1042,1044c1098,1101 < The selection process must be completed at least two month's < prior to the First IETF. This ensures the nominating committee < has sufficient time to complete the confirmation process. --- > The completion of the selection process is due at least two > month's prior to the First IETF. This ensures the nominating > committee has sufficient time to complete the confirmation > process. 1046,1047c1103,1104 < 3. The process of confirming the candidates is expected to be < completed within 1 month. --- > 3. The completion of the process of confirming the candidates is > due within 1 month. 1049,1050c1106,1107 < The confirmation process must be completed at least one month < prior to the First IETF. --- > The completion of the confirmation process is due at least one > month prior to the First IETF. 1105c1165 < conducted. A member may recalled if at least a quorum of all --- > conducted. A member may be recalled if at least a quorum of all 1164,1165c1221,1223 < 10. The Chair announces the open positions to be reviewed and the < call for nominees. --- > 10. The Chair announces the open positions to be reviewed, the > desired expertise provided by the IETF Executive Director, and > the call for nominees. 1213,1214c1271,1272 < committee must determine if the desired qualifications for the < open positions matches its understanding of the qualifications --- > committee must determine if the desired expertise for the open > positions matches its understanding of the qualifications 1270,1273c1328,1330 < which may be exactly the qualifications that were requested. If < the qualifications differ from the desired qualifications < originally requested a brief statement explaining the difference < must be included. --- > which may be exactly the expertise that was requested. If the > qualifications differ from the expertise originally requested a > brief statement explaining the difference must be included. 1396c1452 < the arbiter decides a resolution. Whatever actions are necessary --- > the arbiter decides on a resolution. Whatever actions are 1405,1406c1461,1462 < to execute the resolution are immediately begun and completed as < quickly as possible. --- > necessary to execute the resolution are immediately begun and > completed as quickly as possible. 1584,1585c1640,1641 < desirable set of qualifications for the candidate to be < nominated for each position. --- > desirable expertise for each candidate to be nominated for each > position. 1632c1688 < 14. The eligibility qualifications for the nominating committee was --- > 14. The eligibility qualifications for the nominating committee were 1975c2031 < that it must be completed by the First IETF of the year after the --- > that its completion is due by the First IETF of the year after the 2058,2062c2114,2118 < 11. Over the next 3 months the nominating committee collects input < and deliberates. It should plan to conduct interviews and other < consultations during the Third IETF. The committee must complete < its candidate selection no later than 2 months prior to the First < IETF (approx. January 1). --- > 11. Over the next 3 months the nominating committee collects input and > deliberates. It should plan to conduct interviews and other > consultations during the Third IETF. The committee is due to > complete its candidate selection no later than 2 months prior to the > First IETF (approx. January 1). ---------------------------------------------------------------- To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription manager: From ietf-nomcom-errors@lists.elistx.com Wed Feb 18 20:45:06 2004 Return-Path: Received: from FILTER-ELIST-DAEMON.eListX.com by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) id <0HTB00E0266EP0@eListX.com> (original mail from avri@acm.org); Wed, 18 Feb 2004 20:44:38 -0500 (EST) Received: from DIRECTORY-DAEMON.eListX.com by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) id <0HTB00E0166BOZ@eListX.com> for ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com; Wed, 18 Feb 2004 20:44:36 -0500 (EST) Received: from relay1.kornet.net (relay1.kornet.net [211.48.62.161]) by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) with ESMTP id <0HTB00BDD66ASB@eListX.com> for ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com; Wed, 18 Feb 2004 20:44:35 -0500 (EST) Received: from [221.158.217.62] (avri@acm.org) by relay1.kornet.net (Terrace MailWatcher) with ESMTP id 2004021910:43:47:902546.19298.862 for ; Thu, 19 Feb 2004 10:43:47 +0900 (KST) Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2004 10:43:27 +0900 From: avri@acm.org Subject: draft-ietf-nomcom-rfc2727bis-09.txt To: ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com Message-id: <03262C25-627D-11D8-9889-000393CC2112@acm.org> MIME-version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v612) X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.612) Content-type: multipart/signed; boundary=Apple-Mail-9-63559309; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature" Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Scanned-At: eList eXpress X-Pgp-Agent: GPGMail 1.0.1 (v33, 10.3) List-Owner: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Help: , List-Id: --Apple-Mail-9-63559309 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Hi, http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-nomcom-rfc2727bis-09.txt has now been posted and announced. This version responds to the IESG comments and DISCUSS issues that resulted from the IESG review of draft-ietf-nomcom-rfc2727bis-07.txt. These issues were outlined in: http://lists.elistx.com/archives/ietf-nomcom/200310/msg00000.html and http://lists.elistx.com/archives/ietf-nomcom/200310/msg00005.html . The resolutions have been discussed both on the list in and in a face to face WG meeting. I have read the draft and believe that this version of the draft responds to the issues and corresponds to the rough consensus of the WG. I ask that the participants in this WG review the doc over the next week. I plan to ask the General Area AD to resubmit the draft for IESG consideration on Thursday 26 February 2004 unless it becomes obvious that I am wrong and that the draft does not have WG rough consensus or does not respond adequately to the IESG objections. Thanks for your efforts. a. --Apple-Mail-9-63559309 content-type: application/pgp-signature; x-mac-type=70674453; name=PGP.sig content-description: This is a digitally signed message part content-disposition: inline; filename=PGP.sig content-transfer-encoding: 7bit -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (Darwin) iD8DBQFANBTKzUL36xoPd70RAkSRAJ4wAd0cqUUGeI4GdLc3mnCl8lp2agCgpp2+ e+TWFB+Us3JBsGMPJXyAaxM= =fnyl -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Apple-Mail-9-63559309-- From ietf-nomcom-errors@lists.elistx.com Wed Feb 18 21:25:01 2004 Return-Path: Received: from FILTER-ELIST-DAEMON.eListX.com by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) id <0HTB00G027MZF6@eListX.com> (original mail from sob@harvard.edu); Wed, 18 Feb 2004 21:16:12 -0500 (EST) Received: from DIRECTORY-DAEMON.eListX.com by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) id <0HTB00G017MZF5@eListX.com> for ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com; Wed, 18 Feb 2004 21:16:11 -0500 (EST) Received: from newdev.harvard.edu (newdev.eecs.harvard.edu [140.247.60.212]) by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) with ESMTP id <0HTB00CGF7MZZG@eListX.com> for ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com; Wed, 18 Feb 2004 21:16:11 -0500 (EST) Received: by newdev.harvard.edu (Postfix, from userid 501) id 20D5D1237E4; Wed, 18 Feb 2004 21:15:23 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2004 21:15:23 -0500 (EST) From: sob@harvard.edu (Scott Bradner) Subject: Re: draft-ietf-nomcom-rfc2727bis-09.txt In-reply-to: <03262C25-627D-11D8-9889-000393CC2112@acm.org> To: avri@acm.org, ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com Message-id: <20040219021523.20D5D1237E4@newdev.harvard.edu> List-Owner: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Help: , List-Id: ---------------------------------------------------------------- To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription manager: the revision works for me (though there were rather more changes than I expected) Scott -------- Hi, http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-nomcom-rfc2727bis-09.txt has now been posted and announced. This version responds to the IESG comments and DISCUSS issues that resulted from the IESG review of draft-ietf-nomcom-rfc2727bis-07.txt. These issues were outlined in: http://lists.elistx.com/archives/ietf-nomcom/200310/msg00000.html and http://lists.elistx.com/archives/ietf-nomcom/200310/msg00005.html . The resolutions have been discussed both on the list in and in a face to face WG meeting. I have read the draft and believe that this version of the draft responds to the issues and corresponds to the rough consensus of the WG. I ask that the participants in this WG review the doc over the next week. I plan to ask the General Area AD to resubmit the draft for IESG consideration on Thursday 26 February 2004 unless it becomes obvious that I am wrong and that the draft does not have WG rough consensus or does not respond adequately to the IESG objections. Thanks for your efforts. a. ---------------------------------------------------------------- To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription manager: From ietf-nomcom-errors@lists.elistx.com Mon Feb 23 20:25:00 2004 Return-Path: Received: from FILTER-ELIST-DAEMON.elistx.com by elistx.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) id <0HTK00M02EH8MI@elistx.com> (original mail from avri@acm.org); Mon, 23 Feb 2004 20:22:20 -0500 (EST) Received: from DIRECTORY-DAEMON.elistx.com by elistx.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) id <0HTK00M01EH7MH@elistx.com> for ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com; Mon, 23 Feb 2004 20:22:19 -0500 (EST) Received: from psg.com (psg.com [147.28.0.62]) by elistx.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) with ESMTP id <0HTK00JKIEH6L3@elistx.com> for ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com; Mon, 23 Feb 2004 20:22:19 -0500 (EST) Received: from psg.com ([147.28.0.62] helo=[127.0.0.1]) by psg.com with esmtp (Exim 4.30; FreeBSD) id 1AvRGI-000C13-J3 for ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com; Tue, 24 Feb 2004 01:21:27 +0000 Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2004 10:21:22 +0900 From: Avri Doria Subject: Response to IESG Issues on 2727bis In-reply-to: <123801667.1065546784@[192.168.11.231]> To: ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com Message-id: MIME-version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v612) X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.612) Content-type: text/plain; format=flowed; delsp=yes; charset=US-ASCII List-Owner: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Help: , List-Id: This is a draft of a note I am planning to send Harald as General Area AD once the week's discussion period had passed and I ask the IESG to re-review the draft. It is built around the same message I sent to the list when we initially started to review the issues from the IESG's first review. Corrections and comments please! a. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ----------- 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. > This issue was discussed extensively in the WG. There were strong voices both for and against distribution of qualifications. Part of the discussion rested on the idea that it was the Nomcom that actually decided on qualifications and the IAB/IESG input was a recommendation. Part of the discussion related to the degree to which this information would bind the Nomcom in its deliberations. And part of the issue related to transparency and the degree to which release of the information could provide a basis for appeal. The issue was eventually decided in a compromise that stated that the requesting body would provide a brief summary of the expertise they desired in a successful candidate. It was also decided that this expertise would be released when the postions were announced after the Nomcom was operational. Further it was made explicit that the Nomcom decided on the appropriate qualifications taking all input into account. Specific changes: (Note: all changes cut from diff based on: Feb 23 09:52 2004 diff -bBlt draft-ietf-nomcom-rfc2727bis-07.txt draft-ietf-nomcom-rfc2727bis-09.txt ) Page 5 274,276c271,274 < to be reviewed and a brief description of the desirable set of < qualifications of the candidate that is nominated to fill each < position. --- > to be reviewed and a brief summary of the desired expertise of > the candidate that is nominated to fill each position. > > Page 8 410,411c420,421 < The IESG and IAB are responsible for providing a list of the < qualifications desired of the candidates selected for their --- > The IESG and IAB are responsible for providing summary of the > expertise desired of the candidates selected for their Page 22 1164,1165c1218,1220 < 10. The Chair announces the open positions to be reviewed and the < call for nominees. --- > 10. The Chair announces the open positions to be reviewed, the > desired expertise provided by the IETF Executive Director, and > the call for nominees. Page 23 1213,1214c1268,1269 < committee must determine if the desired qualifications for the < open positions matches its understanding of the qualifications --- > committee must determine if the desired expertise for the open > positions matches its understanding of the qualifications Page 29 1584,1585c1637,1638 < desirable set of qualifications for the candidate to be < nominated for each position. --- > desirable expertise for each candidate to be nominated for each > position. ------------------------------------------------------------------ ----------------- 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. This issue was extensively discussed and the rough consensus was that while it was important that the IESG position vacated by poaching be announced and a full midterm procedure be instituted , that this was not necessary in the case of an IAB position during the annual nomcom process. The solution provided does not distinguish why the IESG position is being vacated, i.e. poaching from one Area to another area would be treated the same as poaching to place one on the IAB. Specific changes: 485,487c497,509 < 8. The following rules apply to nominees who are currently sitting < members of the IESG or IAB, and who are not sitting in an open < position being filled by the nominating committe. --- > > > > > Galvin Expires August 16, 2004 [Page 9] > > Internet-Draft IAB and IESG Selection February 2004 > > > 8. The following rules apply to nominees candidates who are > currently sitting members of the IESG or IAB, and who are not > sitting in an open position being filled by the nominating > committe. 495c517,518 < the mid-term vacancy. --- > the mid-term vacancy according to the rules for a mid-term > vacancy documented elsewhere in this document. 500,505c523,526 < candidate is announced for the new position. < < < < Galvin Expires February 4, 2004 [Page 9] < --- > candidate is announced for the new position. The process, > according to rules set out elsewhere in this document, of filling > the seat vacated by the confirmed candidate may begin as soon as > the vacancy is publicly announced. 510,511c531,534 < respect to filling the open positions and then separately submit < a candidate to fill a mid-term vacancy. --- > respect to filling the open positions and then separately proceed > with the task of filling the mid-term vacancy according to the > rules for a mid-term vacancy documented elsewhere in this > document. 513,517c536,543 < 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. --- > However, the following exception is permitted in the case where > the candidate for an open position is currently a sitting member > of the IAB. It is consistent with these rules for the > announcements of a resignation of a sitting member of the IAB and > of the confirmed candidate for the mid-term vacancy created by > that sitting member on the IAB to all occur at the same time as Feb 23 09:52 2004 diff -bBlt draft-ietf-nomcom-rfc2727bis-07.txt draft-ietf-nomcom-rfc2727bis-09.txt Page 6 > long as the actual sequence of events that occurred did so in the > following order. 520c546,547 < process for the candidate already sitting on another body. --- > process for the open position being filled by the candidate > currently sitting on the IAB. 523c550 < position. --- > position on the IAB. 525c552 < * The body with the new mid-term vacancy requests that the --- > * The IAB with the new mid-term vacancy requests that the 527a555,561 > > > Galvin Expires August 16, 2004 [Page 10] > > Internet-Draft IAB and IESG Selection February 2004 > > 532c566 < mid-term vacancy --- > mid-term vacancy. > ---------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------ 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. This issue was discussed and the rough consensus was that the Liaison should not consult with the body he or she represents before reporting an issue. Specific changes: 723,724c775,777 < Trustees are expected to review the operation and executing < process of the nominating committee and to report any concerns --- > 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 728c781 < Galvin Expires February 4, 2004 [Page 13] --- > Galvin Expires August 16, 2004 [Page 14] 730c783 < Internet-Draft IAB and IESG Selection August 2003 --- > Internet-Draft IAB and IESG Selection February 2004 733,738c786,788 < 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. --- > committee immediately. If they can not resolve the issue > between themselves, liaisons 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 4: ------------------ > Steve Bellovin: > Comment: > The recall section makes no provision or even suggestion that the > Recall Chair verify the putative signers. specific changes: 1477a1531,1535 > The IETF Secretariat is responsible for confirming that each > signatory is qualified to be a voting member of a nominating > committee. A valid petition must be signed by at least 20 > qualified signatories. > ------------------ 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. Specific changes: 1224c1279,1280 < Directors. --- > Directors, and working group chairs, especially those in the > areas with open positions. ----------------- 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". 1923,1924c1976,1978 < 2. No person should serve on both the IESG and the IAB concurrently, < except the IETF Chair who serves on both bodies by definition. --- > 2. 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 are set out elsewhere. ----------------- 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. A change was made, but in rereading it, I am not sure it meets the full needs of the comments. Though I believe that was the intent. I missed this in my reviews of the final version. I think it should really read: If a single voting volunteer position on the Nomcom is vacated, no matter what the circumstance,.... I believe this is editorial and expect it could go as an edit from the IESG if it is agreeable to the WG and the IESG. 1129,1134c1183,1188 < 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. --- > If a voting volunteer member is recalled, regardless of the > circumstances, 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. ----------------- 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...) 312a312,315 > The term of a confirmed candidate selected according to the > mid-term vacancy rules may be less than 2 years, as stated > elsewhere in this document. > 315c318 < may assign a term greater than 2 years in order to ensure the --- > may assign a term of not more than 3 years in order to ensure the 321,323c324,326 < and those sitting) to which it may assign a term greater than 2 Feb 23 09:52 2004 diff -bBlt draft-ietf-nomcom-rfc2727bis-07.txt draft-ietf-nomcom-rfc2727bis-09.txt Page 3 < years to ensure that all such members will not be reviewed at the < same time. --- > and those sitting) to which it may assign a term of not more than > 3 years to ensure that all such members will not be reviewed at > the same time. ----------------- 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. Yes, the rough consensus was that liaisons were only barred from voting on candidates. The intent is that decisions are made by the voting rules established by the Nomcom chair but that the quorum is based on the set of all members. 1226d1281 < Only voting volunteer members vote to select candidates. Other clauses that pertain: 5. The Chair must establish a voting mechanism. The committee must be able to objectively determine when a decision has been made during its deliberations. The criteria for determining closure must be established and known to all members of the nominating committee. 6. At least a quorum of committee members must participate in a vote. Only voting volunteers vote on a candidate selection. For a candidate selection vote a quorum is comprised of at least 7 of the voting volunteers. At all other times a quorum is present if at least 75% of the nominating committee members are participating. ----------------- 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.) As I understand the intent is that it takes a quorum-equivalent of the full member set (defined as 75% of the full Nomcom) to recall a member of the Nomcom. No substantive change made. ----------------- IESG Issue 11 ----------------- > >> 4. Confirmed candidates are expected to serve at least a 2 year >> term. > > not consistent with interim appointments As there is a statement two paragraphs below that states the exception for midterm vacancies, no change was made. Specifically: The term of a confirmed candidate selected according to the mid-term vacancy rules may be less than 2 years, as stated elsewhere in this document. No change made. ----------------- IESG Issue 12 ----------------- > >> First, when there is only one official nominating committee the > > add comma after committee done ----------------- 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 done ----------------- 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?) change made. I believe the intent is allow for exception in the documented procedure. ----------------- 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". done ----------------- IESG Issue 16 ----------------- > >> If they can not resolve the issue between themselves liaisons > > comma after themselves. done ----------------- 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. page 5 235c232 < 1. The annual process is expected to be completed within 7 months. --- > 1. The completion of the annual process is due within 7 months. 237c234 < The annual process is expected to be completed one month prior to --- > The completion of the annual process is due one month prior to 274,276c271,274 1038,1039c1091,1092 < 2. The process of selecting candidates to be confirmed by their < respective confirming body is expected to be completed within 3 --- > 2. The completion of the process of selecting candidates to be > confirmed by their respective confirming body is due within 3 1042,1044c1095,1098 < The selection process must be completed at least two month's < prior to the First IETF. This ensures the nominating committee < has sufficient time to complete the confirmation process. --- > The completion of the selection process is due at least two > month's prior to the First IETF. This ensures the nominating > committee has sufficient time to complete the confirmation > process. ----------------- 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. page 11 587,588c639,640 < three meetings) after the next nominating committee's term < begins. --- > three meetings), i.e., the IETF meeting after the next > nominating committee's term begins. ----------------- 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. > In previous WG discussions, the principle of avoiding too much discussion of the internal working of the IAB/IESG was upheld by rough consensus. The principle of doing approximately half, no matter what the internal organization has been part of the design since the early days of the Nomcom. There was no consensus for including more information. No change was made. ----------------- 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". No change made. There was no consensus for making a change. ----------------- 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. Agree,d though it is possible. While there was some support for asking the editor to reorganize the document at this late date there no was consensus for requiring it. ----------------- 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/ This was not seen as a purely editorial change. There is a small chance that saying one half of the IAB and IESG could be interpreted as one half of the total membership regardless of distribution between the two groups as opposed to one half of each. No change was made ----------------- 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. This was made more explicit and the cases of IESG and IAB terms were separated. 327,332d329 < confirmed. All confirmed candidate terms begin during the First < IETF meeting corresponding to the beginning of the term for which < they were confirmed. Normally, the confirmed candidate's term < begins when the currently sitting member's term ends on the last < day of the meeting. A term may begin or end no sooner than the < first day of the meeting and no later than the last day of the 336c333 < Galvin Expires February 4, 2004 [Page 6] --- > Galvin Expires August 16, 2004 [Page 6] 338c335 < Internet-Draft IAB and IESG Selection August 2003 --- > Internet-Draft IAB and IESG Selection February 2004 340a338,345 > confirmed. All confirmed candidate terms begin during the First > IETF meeting corresponding to the beginning of the term for which > they were confirmed. > > For confirmed candidates of the IESG the terms begin no later > than when the currently sitting members' terms end on the last > day of the meeting. A term may begin or end no sooner than the > first day of the meeting and no later than the last day of the 342c347 < sitting member and the confirmed candidate. The confirmed --- > sitting member and the confirmed candidate. A confirmed 345a351,356 > For confirmed candidates of the IAB the terms overlap with the > terms of the sitting members for the entire week of the meeting. > > For candidates confirmed under the mid-term vacancy rules, the > term begins as soon as possible after the confirmation. > ----------------- 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. A change was made to indicate that the ISCO BoT may appoint a liaison. In keeping with cases of IAB and IESG liaisons, the methods of their doing so is left to them. 755,758c805 < 9. The Internet Society Board of Trustees may appoint a liaison to < the nominating committee. ----------------- 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. > > While the document could possibly benefit from reorganizing and rewriting, the decision to do so was not made. a. ---------------------------------------------------------------- To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription manager: From ietf-nomcom-errors@lists.elistx.com Mon Feb 23 21:35:02 2004 Return-Path: Received: from FILTER-ELIST-DAEMON.elistx.com by elistx.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) id <0HTK00302HFM7G@elistx.com> (original mail from jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com); Mon, 23 Feb 2004 21:26:10 -0500 (EST) Received: from DIRECTORY-DAEMON.elistx.com by elistx.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) id <0HTK00301HFL7F@elistx.com> for ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com; Mon, 23 Feb 2004 21:26:09 -0500 (EST) Received: from maynard.mail.mindspring.net (maynard.mail.mindspring.net [207.69.200.243]) by elistx.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) with ESMTP id <0HTK000D8HFG1M@elistx.com> for ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com; Mon, 23 Feb 2004 21:26:09 -0500 (EST) Received: from 1cust40.tnt36.dfw9.da.uu.net ([67.234.81.40] helo=ix.netcom.com) by maynard.mail.mindspring.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 1AvSFc-0007Rt-00; Mon, 23 Feb 2004 21:24:48 -0500 Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2004 20:18:03 -0800 From: Jeff Williams Subject: Re: Response to IESG Issues on 2727bis To: Avri Doria Cc: ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com Message-id: <403AD073.C9DFDDB4@ix.netcom.com> Organization: INEGroup Spokesman MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.08 [en] (Win95; U; 16bit) Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii References: List-Owner: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Help: , List-Id: Avri and all, Biases are and have been very prevalent in the IAB and the IESG for a few years now, and in my opinion getting much worse. Harald is good case in point given his long standing and known display if preferring bias in the ICANN DNSO/GNSO on far to many occasions. Hence, I am in agreement that personal egregious displays of specific personal bias should be very strongly discouraged if not eliminated within the IAB or the IESG... Avri Doria wrote: > This is a draft of a note I am planning to send Harald as General Area > AD once the week's discussion period had passed and I ask the IESG to > re-review the draft. > > It is built around the same message I sent to the list when we > initially started to review the issues from the IESG's first review. > > Corrections and comments please! > > a. > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > ----------- > 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. > > > > This issue was discussed extensively in the WG. There were strong > voices both for and against distribution of qualifications. Part of > the discussion rested on the idea that it was the Nomcom that actually > decided on qualifications and the IAB/IESG input was a recommendation. > Part of the discussion related to the degree to which this information > would bind the Nomcom in its deliberations. And part of the issue > related to transparency and the degree to which release of the > information could provide a basis for appeal. > > The issue was eventually decided in a compromise that stated that the > requesting body would provide a brief summary of the expertise they > desired in a successful candidate. It was also decided that this > expertise would be released when the postions were announced after the > Nomcom was operational. Further it was made explicit that the Nomcom > decided on the appropriate qualifications taking all input into > account. > > Specific changes: > > (Note: all changes cut from diff based on: Feb 23 09:52 2004 diff -bBlt > draft-ietf-nomcom-rfc2727bis-07.txt draft-ietf-nomcom-rfc2727bis-09.txt > ) > > Page 5 > > 274,276c271,274 > < to be reviewed and a brief description of the desirable set of > < qualifications of the candidate that is nominated to fill each > < position. > --- > > to be reviewed and a brief summary of the desired expertise of > > the candidate that is nominated to fill each position. > > > > > > Page 8 > > 410,411c420,421 > < The IESG and IAB are responsible for providing a list of > the > < qualifications desired of the candidates selected for their > --- > > The IESG and IAB are responsible for providing summary of > the > > expertise desired of the candidates selected for their > > Page 22 > > 1164,1165c1218,1220 > < 10. The Chair announces the open positions to be reviewed and the > < call for nominees. > --- > > 10. The Chair announces the open positions to be reviewed, the > > desired expertise provided by the IETF Executive Director, and > > the call for nominees. > > Page 23 > > 1213,1214c1268,1269 > < committee must determine if the desired qualifications for the > < open positions matches its understanding of the qualifications > --- > > committee must determine if the desired expertise for the open > > positions matches its understanding of the qualifications > > Page 29 > > 1584,1585c1637,1638 > < desirable set of qualifications for the candidate to be > < nominated for each position. > --- > > desirable expertise for each candidate to be nominated for > each > > position. > > ------------------------------------------------------------------ > > ----------------- > 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. > > This issue was extensively discussed and the rough consensus was that > while it was important that the IESG position vacated by poaching be > announced and a full midterm procedure be instituted , that this was > not necessary in the case of an IAB position during the annual nomcom > process. The solution provided does not distinguish why the IESG > position is being vacated, i.e. poaching from one Area to another area > would be treated the same as poaching to place one on the IAB. > > Specific changes: > > 485,487c497,509 > < 8. The following rules apply to nominees who are currently sitting > < members of the IESG or IAB, and who are not sitting in an open > < position being filled by the nominating committe. > --- > > > > > > > > > > Galvin Expires August 16, 2004 [Page > 9] > > > > Internet-Draft IAB and IESG Selection February > 2004 > > > > > > 8. The following rules apply to nominees candidates who are > > currently sitting members of the IESG or IAB, and who are not > > sitting in an open position being filled by the nominating > > committe. > 495c517,518 > < the mid-term vacancy. > --- > > the mid-term vacancy according to the rules for a mid-term > > vacancy documented elsewhere in this document. > 500,505c523,526 > < candidate is announced for the new position. > < > < > < > < Galvin Expires February 4, 2004 [Page > 9] > < > --- > > candidate is announced for the new position. The process, > > according to rules set out elsewhere in this document, of > filling > > the seat vacated by the confirmed candidate may begin as soon > as > > the vacancy is publicly announced. > 510,511c531,534 > < respect to filling the open positions and then separately > submit > < a candidate to fill a mid-term vacancy. > --- > > respect to filling the open positions and then separately > proceed > > with the task of filling the mid-term vacancy according to the > > rules for a mid-term vacancy documented elsewhere in this > > document. > 513,517c536,543 > < 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. > --- > > However, the following exception is permitted in the case where > > the candidate for an open position is currently a sitting > member > > of the IAB. It is consistent with these rules for the > > announcements of a resignation of a sitting member of the IAB > and > > of the confirmed candidate for the mid-term vacancy created by > > that sitting member on the IAB to all occur at the same time as > > Feb 23 09:52 2004 diff -bBlt draft-ietf-nomcom-rfc2727bis-07.txt > draft-ietf-nomcom-rfc2727bis-09.txt Page 6 > > > long as the actual sequence of events that occurred did so in > the > > following order. > 520c546,547 > < process for the candidate already sitting on another body. > --- > > process for the open position being filled by the candidate > > currently sitting on the IAB. > 523c550 > < position. > --- > > position on the IAB. > 525c552 > < * The body with the new mid-term vacancy requests that the > --- > > * The IAB with the new mid-term vacancy requests that the > 527a555,561 > > > > > > Galvin Expires August 16, 2004 [Page > 10] > > > > Internet-Draft IAB and IESG Selection February > 2004 > > > > > 532c566 > < mid-term vacancy > --- > > mid-term vacancy. > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > > ------------------ > 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. > > > -snip - > > > In previous WG discussions, the principle of avoiding too much > discussion of the internal working of the IAB/IESG was upheld by rough > consensus. The principle of doing approximately half, no matter what > the internal organization has been part of the design since the early > days of the Nomcom. There was no consensus for including more > information. > > No change was made. > > ----------------- > 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". > > No change made. There was no consensus for making a change. > ----------------- > 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. > > Agree,d though it is possible. While there was some support for asking > the editor to reorganize the document at this late date there no was > consensus for requiring it. > > ----------------- > 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/ > > This was not seen as a purely editorial change. There is a small > chance that saying one half of the IAB and IESG could be interpreted as > one half of the total membership regardless of distribution between the > two groups as opposed to one half of each. > > No change was made > ----------------- > 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. > > This was made more explicit and the cases of IESG and IAB terms were > separated. > > 327,332d329 > < confirmed. All confirmed candidate terms begin during the > First > < IETF meeting corresponding to the beginning of the term for > which > < they were confirmed. Normally, the confirmed candidate's term > < begins when the currently sitting member's term ends on the > last > < day of the meeting. A term may begin or end no sooner than the > < first day of the meeting and no later than the last day of the > 336c333 > < Galvin Expires February 4, 2004 [Page > 6] > --- > > Galvin Expires August 16, 2004 [Page > 6] > 338c335 > < Internet-Draft IAB and IESG Selection August > 2003 > --- > > Internet-Draft IAB and IESG Selection February > 2004 > 340a338,345 > > confirmed. All confirmed candidate terms begin during the > First > > IETF meeting corresponding to the beginning of the term for > which > > they were confirmed. > > > > For confirmed candidates of the IESG the terms begin no later > > than when the currently sitting members' terms end on the last > > day of the meeting. A term may begin or end no sooner than the > > first day of the meeting and no later than the last day of the > 342c347 > < sitting member and the confirmed candidate. The confirmed > --- > > sitting member and the confirmed candidate. A confirmed > 345a351,356 > > For confirmed candidates of the IAB the terms overlap with the > > terms of the sitting members for the entire week of the > meeting. > > > > For candidates confirmed under the mid-term vacancy rules, the > > term begins as soon as possible after the confirmation. > > > > ----------------- > 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. > > A change was made to indicate that the ISCO BoT may appoint a liaison. > In keeping with cases of IAB and IESG liaisons, the methods of their > doing so is left to them. > > 755,758c805 > < 9. The Internet Society Board of Trustees may appoint a liaison > to > < the nominating committee. > ----------------- > 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. > > > > > > While the document could possibly benefit from reorganizing and > rewriting, the decision to do so was not made. > > a. > > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription > manager: Regards, -- Jeffrey A. Williams Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 134k members/stakeholders strong!) "Be precise in the use of words and expect precision from others" - Pierre Abelard "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com Registered Email addr with the USPS Contact Number: 214-244-4827 ---------------------------------------------------------------- To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription manager: From ietf-nomcom-errors@lists.elistx.com Mon Feb 23 21:35:06 2004 Return-Path: Received: from FILTER-ELIST-DAEMON.elistx.com by elistx.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) id <0HTK00302HQNF9@elistx.com> (original mail from sob@harvard.edu); Mon, 23 Feb 2004 21:32:47 -0500 (EST) Received: from DIRECTORY-DAEMON.elistx.com by elistx.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) id <0HTK00301HQNF8@elistx.com> for ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com; Mon, 23 Feb 2004 21:32:47 -0500 (EST) Received: from newdev.harvard.edu (newdev.eecs.harvard.edu [140.247.60.212]) by elistx.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) with ESMTP id <0HTK00221HQMXB@elistx.com> for ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com; Mon, 23 Feb 2004 21:32:47 -0500 (EST) Received: by newdev.harvard.edu (Postfix, from userid 501) id 338A312F14B; Mon, 23 Feb 2004 21:31:55 -0500 (EST) Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2004 21:31:55 -0500 (EST) From: sob@harvard.edu (Scott Bradner) Subject: Re: Response to IESG Issues on 2727bis In-reply-to: To: avri@acm.org, ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com Message-id: <20040224023155.338A312F14B@newdev.harvard.edu> List-Owner: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Help: , List-Id: ---------------------------------------------------------------- To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription manager: works for me Scott ---------------------------------------------------------------- To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription manager: From ietf-nomcom-errors@lists.elistx.com Thu Feb 26 23:55:11 2004 Return-Path: Received: from FILTER-ELIST-DAEMON.elistx.com by elistx.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) id <0HTQ0010283WFY@elistx.com> (original mail from avri@acm.org); Thu, 26 Feb 2004 23:50:20 -0500 (EST) Received: from DIRECTORY-DAEMON.elistx.com by elistx.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) id <0HTQ0010183OFT@elistx.com> for ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com; Thu, 26 Feb 2004 23:50:13 -0500 (EST) Received: from psg.com (psg.com [147.28.0.62]) by elistx.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) with ESMTP id <0HTQ00MDU83NOV@elistx.com> for ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com; Thu, 26 Feb 2004 23:50:12 -0500 (EST) Received: from psg.com ([147.28.0.62] helo=[127.0.0.1]) by psg.com with esmtp (Exim 4.30; FreeBSD) id 1AwZva-0005vk-RK; Fri, 27 Feb 2004 04:48:47 +0000 Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2004 13:48:30 +0900 From: avri@acm.org Subject: draft-ietf-nomcom-rfc2727bis-09.txt To: Harald Alvestrand Cc: ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com Message-id: <30999852-68E0-11D8-9799-000393CC2112@acm.org> MIME-version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v612) X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.612) Content-type: multipart/signed; boundary=Apple-Mail-2-765862716; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature" Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Scanned-At: eList eXpress X-Pgp-Agent: GPGMail 1.0.1 (v33, 10.3) List-Owner: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Help: , List-Id: --Apple-Mail-2-765862716 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Hi, As a week of review has now passed since the posting of this draft and on hearing no objections I now pass it back to you for IESG re-consideration as a BCP. A description of the changes and responses made to the IESG issues can be found in: http://lists.elistx.com/archives/ietf-nomcom/200402/msg00005.html Thanks a. --Apple-Mail-2-765862716 content-type: application/pgp-signature; x-mac-type=70674453; name=PGP.sig content-description: This is a digitally signed message part content-disposition: inline; filename=PGP.sig content-transfer-encoding: 7bit -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (Darwin) iD8DBQFAPswozUL36xoPd70RAq4jAJ44Ffh6k35Vgh9ex7kuwqofdiNTlQCgrJNZ px7hvDPZgWLBvxIWLv8jV8U= =sj3U -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Apple-Mail-2-765862716-- From ietf-nomcom-errors@lists.elistx.com Sat Feb 28 06:45:02 2004 Return-Path: Received: from FILTER-ELIST-DAEMON.elistx.com by elistx.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) id <0HTS00302LUGTZ@elistx.com> (original mail from harald@alvestrand.no); Sat, 28 Feb 2004 06:42:16 -0500 (EST) Received: from DIRECTORY-DAEMON.elistx.com by elistx.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) id <0HTS00301LUETY@elistx.com> for ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com; Sat, 28 Feb 2004 06:42:14 -0500 (EST) Received: from eikenes.alvestrand.no (eikenes.alvestrand.no [158.38.152.233]) by elistx.com (PMDF V6.0-025 #44856) with ESMTP id <0HTS0019YLUDWY@elistx.com> for ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com; Sat, 28 Feb 2004 06:42:14 -0500 (EST) Received: from halvestr-w2k1 (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by eikenes.alvestrand.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id 432EB61BDD; Sat, 28 Feb 2004 12:41:15 +0100 (CET) Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2004 17:41:22 -0800 From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand Subject: Re: draft-ietf-nomcom-rfc2727bis-09.txt In-reply-to: <30999852-68E0-11D8-9799-000393CC2112@acm.org> To: avri@acm.org Cc: ietf-nomcom@lists.elistx.com Message-id: <39810464.1077903682@localhost> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Mulberry/3.1.0 (Win32) Content-type: multipart/signed; boundary="==========8D6B0F249EC94C862E5C=========="; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha1 X-Virus-Scanned-At: eList eXpress References: <30999852-68E0-11D8-9799-000393CC2112@acm.org> List-Owner: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Help: , List-Id: --==========8D6B0F249EC94C862E5C========== Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline Thank you, Avri! I'll work with the IESG to verify that the resolution of issues is=20 acceptable to the IESG. Harald --On 27. februar 2004 13:48 +0900 avri@acm.org wrote: > Hi, > > As a week of review has now passed since the posting of this draft and on > hearing no objections I now pass it back to you for IESG re-consideration > as a BCP. > > A description of the changes and responses made to the IESG issues can be > found in: > > http://lists.elistx.com/archives/ietf-nomcom/200402/msg00005.html > > Thanks > > a. > > --==========8D6B0F249EC94C862E5C========== Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (MingW32) iD8DBQFAP/HHOMj+2+WY0F4RAm+cAJwP/SXKWmfFdtPjszk5hLqTqu4HMwCgpRBX /hcalW/UX9orOShqLzTTgrk= =c6gb -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --==========8D6B0F249EC94C862E5C==========--