[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Comments on draft-iab-isocbot-00.txt
Howdy,
Thanks very much for the input, and my apologies for the delayed reply
-- I was batching all comments until the end of the last call period
before addressing them.
I've cc'ed the IESG for their information in considering the
document.
Addressing each of your comments:
Basavaraj.Patil@nokia.com wrote:
Hi Leslie,
A few comments on the I-D: draft-iab-isocbot-00.txt which is in IETF
LC:
1. In section 3.2 the I-D says:
"The IAB will publish the list of nominated persons,"
It would be good to clarify where this is published. In section 3.1
you mention the ietf-announce email address. Repeating this would
make it clear.
We could; on the other hand, the way we handled it this year is
that we posted them to the IAB web page.
I think the appropriate thing is that the information of "where to
find the nominees list" should be included in the call for
nominations. We could add "and the manner in which the
list of nominees will be published" to the end of the last
sentence of the first paragraph of Section 3.1. [IESG, does
that require a document rev? or RFC-Editor note?]
2. Section 3.2 says:
"review the nomination material"
Is there a writeup somewhere which says what are the qualifications
or characteristics that the IAB is looking for in a candidate for
the BoT nomination? Is the nomination material that is being
refered to here simply what the candidate decided to submit as part
of the nomination?
The writeup is Section 2 of the document.
Also there is no real explanation of what the IAB does in terms of
deliberation or interviewing a candidate etc. before selecting a
candidate.
Indeed. The process is determined annually by the IAB, and it is
largely a matter of the IAB exercising its judgement.
3. There is no text in the document which explains what the IAB would
do if no one from the nominated list meets the criteria for
appointment to the ISOC BoT.
It is a possibe edge-case, but not a probable one -- part of why
we are leaving "judgement of the IAB" *in* the process, and not
attempting to make an algorithm out of the process.
4. The document does not mention anything about whether there exists a
process to recall an IETF nominated ISOC BoT.
The IETF's role is to identify candidates for the ISOC BoT. Recall
procedures would be included in the ISOC BoT rules.
5. The midterm nomination process currently is bypassing the entire
process. The midterm process should follow the same process defined
here except that the process can be speeded up.
I don't understand this comment; it is inconsistent with the text
(from Section 3.5 of the document):
" If the IAB elects to fill the mid-term vacancy before the next annual
selection, a separate timeline will be announced and the rest of the
process described in this document will be followed."
6. Current IESG members should not be considered as candidates for the
ISOC BoT because of their enormous work load. The IETF has plenty
of qualified candidates and there should be an effort to tap into
this pool rather than using folks who are already busy.
This is indeed a point that has been discussed. However,
historically, people have held both roles successfully,
so there is no strict proof that the two roles must be mutually
exclusive.
What we are attempting to do is include that consideration in
the judgement process, without precluding the possibility of
selecting an IESG person if it was clearly (otherwise) the right
choice at some point in time.
Again, thanks for your considered input; it was certainly helpful
in reviewing the document, even though I don't believe the
text will change (with the exception of point 1, above).
Thanks,
Leslie.
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------
"Reality:
Yours to discover."
-- ThinkingCat
Leslie Daigle
leslie@thinkingcat.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------