RE: Comments on draft-ietf-nomcom-rfc2727bis

[Margaret.Wasserman@nokia.com]

>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...

I despise these types of documents, because they often skirt real issues
and/or hide a lack of real consensus.  However, I doubt that it was
avoidable in this situation.

>>> 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?

The nomcom chair effectively has to make the list of positions
public, in order to make an open call for nominations.

It was my understanding that the "description of the desirable
set of qualifications" was new...  I would like to see this made
public, along with the list of positions.  

More importantly though, as a member of one group that is expected 
to submit this description (are we planning to do one this year, 
BTW?), I'd like to know, unambiguously, whether it would be publicly 
disseminated or not before deciding what it should say.

> >> 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 also might come up in the case where someone moves from 
one IESG position to another.  I think that this is a 
real possibility, and I have an example.  Please don't take 
this as a suggestion, though...

What if the sitting chair of the IETF decides not to volunteer
for another term?  What happens if the nomcom selects an IESG
member who is not up for renewal, thus creating another open
position?  

I agree with you that IAB slots are basically equivalent, 
and that it should be fine for the nomcom to fill six open
IAB slots based on the nominations they received for five
open slots.

But, I don't consider the IESG positions to be equivalent.
Even ADs who share an area might split the area along 
lines of specialization (like Randy and Bert) or have
complementary skills/expertise.  So, when IESG positions
are opened, I think that there should always be a public
call for volunteers.

One of the problems with this document is that it tries very
hard to make no distinction between selection for the IESG
and IAB.  But, in actuality, the selection for these bodies
is somewhat different because the IAB is more of an amorphous
committee, while the IESG has particular seats.

> 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.

So, let's say that.

> 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?

Given that we bothered to write this document at all, the need
to inform the community and get open nominations for any open
IESG slot is not something I'd like to leave to the judgement
of one individual.

> 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.

I can live with that.

> >> 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....

I am talking about section 4.3, where it lists the members of the
nominating committee and says how they are selected.  The IESG
and IAB liaisons are listed, but not the ISOC liaison.

> > 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......

I wouldn't mind the repetition quite as much if the repetitive
sections said exactly the same thing.  As it is, the document
seems rather vague, and there are a lot of forward references.
Not worth losing sleep over, though.

Margaret