[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: ops dir review of draft-ietf-nomcom-rfc2727bis-07.txt !!!

Some responses as shepherding AD.... feel free to forward to ops-dir.

--On 1. oktober 2003 13:33 -0700 Randy Bush <randy@psg.com> wrote:

From: Pekka Savola <pekkas@netcore.fi>
To: Randy Bush <randy@psg.com>
cc: ops directorate <ops-dir@ops.ietf.org>
Subject: draft-ietf-nomcom-rfc2727bis-07.txt [Re: Agenda and Package for
 October 2, 2003 Telechat]
Date: Wed, 1 Oct 2003 22:47:44 +0300 (EEST)


First time I looked into the Nomcom rules, so watch out..

      o draft-ietf-nomcom-rfc2727bis-07.txt
	IAB and IESG Selection, Confirmation, and Recall Process: Operation of
	the Nominating and Recall Committees (BCP) - 8 of 9
	Token: Harald Alvestrand


       Third, the confirming body has two weeks from the day it is
       notified of a candidate to reject the candidate, otherwise the
       candidate is assumed to have been confirmed.

==> in these days of non-guaranteed email delivery, automatic spam
filters and /dev/nulling mails, wouldn't it make much more sense to *not*
to make any assumptions about this one way or the other -- just state
that  a confirmation/rejection must be transmitted (for as many times as
required :-)? ... or are the confirming bodies really so lazy that they
can't bother to send an email on time, despite harassments etc.

Believe me, you do NOT want to reopen this debate.
This text was the result of about 200 emails and 15 different candidate texts (with Ran Atkinson and Mike St. Johns alternating as chief nitpickers) - the issue is that the nomcom WG is not the right body to force the confirming bodies to have a decision process that actually can deliver a result in finite time, and the document has to say SOMETHING about how a non-answer is to be treated.


   5.   The Internet Society President appoints the Chair, who must meet
        the same requirements for membership in the nominating committee
        as a voting volunteer.

==> as I read it, the ISOC president could order anyone at all, with the
required qualifications, to serve as the NomCom Chair.  No questions asked
whether one is willing, capable, or not?  Is this the intended policy?
At least you can say no if someone nominates you for IESG/IAB...  :-)

Yes.
If we have an ISOC president who is a total incompetent, we have bigger problems than picking the nomcom chair. If the president is competent, we should not create too many rules surrounding this appointment.
IMHO.

   9.   The Internet Society Board of Trustees may appoint a liaison to
        the nominating committee.

   10.  An advisor is responsible for such duties as specified by the
        invitation that resulted in the appointment.

Advisors do not vote on the selection of candidates.

==> the second paragraph of 10. is redundant.  It has already been
stated,  but if you really want to repeat those again, you should put
them in all  the places, like in section 9 above..

        No more than two volunteers with the same primary affiliation
        may be selected for the nominating committee.

==> I'd say the correct number is one.  This is because there are such
large corporations out there that the random selection could easily give
2-3 of them 2 members each, causing a majority as is.  What we should have
is getting the comittee spread throughout more evenly.

Was debated in the Nomcom WG, and the WG reached consensus on two. I don't want to reopen the issue.


But I can also agree to 2 members, it's not too much (and more often than
not, those big companies have conflicting interests :-).. personally I'd
prefer fewer though.

7. Member Recall

==> is it intentional that the hypothetical recall process could last the
same about 7 months as the nomcom process?  how useful would such a
process be to the IETF community, I wonder?  More than that, if recalling
a really misbehaving member would take 7 months, couldn't he already have
done a significant amount of harm?

I don't think there's a timeline on the recall process. We have never tried it, so most of the description is just left alone. 

I don't have any suggestions to offer here, of course.. just pointing out
some problems with the process..

editorials
----------

This document is a revision of and supercedes RFC2727. [2] It is a

==> s/supercedes/Obsoletes/ ?  That isn't explicitly stated anywhere.
Could be in the appendix too.

predecessor: RFC2727. [2]

==> s/. [2]/ [2]./

position being filled by the nominating committe.

==> /te/tee/

The selection process must be completed at least two month's

==> s/'s/s/

--
Pekka Savola                 "You each name yourselves king, yet the
Netcore Oy                    kingdom bleeds."
Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings