[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Comments on draft-ietf-nomcom-rfc2727bis
Replying as shepherding AD..... not sure if we need RFC Editor notes, more
discussion or a revved document.
This is one of the documents where the WG went heavily into wordsmithing,
and where some phrases are "trigger words" that have the ability to trigger
long debates if one suggests modifying them. I do NOT like such documents...
--On 1. oktober 2003 22:25 -0400 Margaret.Wasserman@nokia.com wrote:
I have a bunch of comments on the nomcom draft (attached). I have
divided them into substantive and editorial comments, but I haven't
decided whether or not to register a discuss for my substantive
comments, as I haven't read everyone else's comments
Margaret
SUBSTANTIVE (more or less):
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.
It reads better without the "..as it was known" part, I think. It is the
definition of the process, after all. RFC Editor note?
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?
The tradition has been to send it privately, and let the nomcom chair make
the list public. Is there a reason to mandate one or the other?
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.
Good catch.
A term may begin or end no sooner than the
first day of the meeting and no later than the last day of the
meeting as determined by the mutual agreement of the currently
sitting member and the confirmed candidate. The confirmed
candidate's term may overlap the sitting member's term during the
meeting as determined by their mutual agreement.
How does this apply to IAB terms? In the case where there is
more than one new IAB member, I don't think that it is
defined which IAB member each new member is replacing.
In some cases (the 1-year replacement position of the IAB this year, for
instance), it's clear. Otherwise, I'd guess that they can match up if they
want to - in reality, it's not clear that anyone cares when the IAB
switches, since individual IAB members have very little formal power.
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
From my reading, this means that a position can be vacated and
filled without any community awareness that the position was
ever open... Would there be a public call for nominations?
This was written the way it is to allow the IAB to be poached for IESG
members, without requiring a protracted process to fill the IAB slot, based
on the issues that Mike St. Johns raised with what happened with Ted's
moving from IAB to IESG this year. I don't think this has been thought
through for the case of moving someone from the IESG to the IAB - this has
never happened, and I get a real headache when trying to imagine a
situation where it would be an appropriate thing to do.
It seems to me that we need _some_ public step in here. For
example, when the Executive Director informs the nomcom of
the vacancy, perhaps that should be public? Or, perhaps we
should state that there is a public call for nominations?
Also, we seem to be skipping the step where the body supplies
the qualifications desired in a candidate... Is it intended
that this could happen without the body being informed.
For example: If a <foo> area director is nominated, selected
and confirmed for an IAB position, will the IESG be informed
of the opening and asked to provide qualifications for a new
candidate? Will the community be aware that the IESG seat
needs to be filled? Will there be a public call for
nominations for the position?
For the case of replacing an AD, I would think that it would be completely
stupid not to make a public call for nominations.
But for the case of increasing the number of replacements on the IAB by
one, I don't see any reason to mandate an extra public nomination process.
How much do we need to write here, and how much can we safely leave to the
common sense of the people filling the positions?
EDITORIAL:
The section numbering in this document doesn't match usual
conventions.
A superior candidate is one who the nominating committee believes
would contribute in such a way as to improve or enhance the body
to which he or she is nominated.
Why define this here, instead of in the definitions section?
It's the only place in the document where "superior candidate" is used. I
argued for taking it out of the definitions section, because it's only
relevant to this particular piece of the document.
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/
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, the previous list of nomcom members doesn't include this
liaison...
This was added to the rules by the nomcom WG in this iteration of the
process.
Which previous list of nomcom members are you referring to?
Christian Huitema was ISOC liaison in 1996-1997, and Geoff Huston in
1992-1993, but the written rules didn't allow for such a position at that
time....
Also from section 4:
2. The term of a nominating committee is expected to be 15 months.
It is the intent of this rule that the end of a nominating
committee's term overlap by approximately three months the
beginning of the term of the next nominating committee.
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.
A term is expected to begin at least two months prior to the
Third IETF to ensure the nominating committee has at least one
month to get organized before preparing for the Third IETF.
This section isn't consistent. If the term begins two months
before the "third IETF" and ends at the following "third IETF",
it is only 14 months long.
Actually it's variable. In the collected timeline in the appendix, the
critical sentence is this one:
7. After the challenge period closes the Chair announces the members of
the committee and its term begins. The announcement must be done no
later than 6 months prior to the First IETF (approx. September 1).
If the First IETF meeting is in March, and the following Third IETF meeting
is in December, it will be at least 15 months; if the First IETF meeting is
in April and the following Third IETF meeting is in November, it could be
as little as 13 months.
(This year, we're approximately 1 month behind the new schedule, btw.)
The organization of this document seems to result in repeating
a lot of information.
The style of this editor seems to result in repeating a lot of
information......