Subject: REMINDER: revision to RFC2727 - NOMCOM

From: James M Galvin <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2002 10:34:43 -0500

I just wanted to call your attention to the recently announced proposed
revision:

        Title           : IAB and IESG Selection, Confirmation, and Recall 
                          Process: Operation of the Nominating and Recall 
                          Comittees
        Filename        : draft-galvin-rfc2727bis-00.txt
        
	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.

As indicated in the message included below 6 changes have already been
incorporated into the revision and there are at least 4 to be discussed.

There is a mailing list for the discussion:

	[email-masked]

To subscribe send a message with the single word "subscribe" in the body
to:

	[email-masked]

Thank you,

Jim

Subject: Revision to RFC2727 - NOMCOM
From: James M Galvin <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked]
Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2002 17:38:16 -0500 (EST)

It has been a couple years since the Nominating Committee RFC has been
updated.  The current version is RFC 2727 or BCP 10, depending on your
favorite designation.

I have just submitted a draft revision to internet-drafts.  I expect the
announcement will be forthcoming in the next few days.

The plan is not to create a formal working group, per se, for the
document.  Instead a mailing list has been created to review and prepare
the document for publication.  This list will be used to discuss a few
additional issues that have not yet been incorporated into the proposed
revision.

If you are interesting in the "IAB and IESG Selection Process", also
known as the 'Operation of the Nominating Committee", please do join the
mailing list and participate in its review.  You may wish to do that now
in anticipation of the draft's announcement.

The mailing list for the discussion of this draft is:

    [email-masked]

To join the list send a message with the single word "subscribe" in the
body to:

    [email-masked]

The draft as submitted incorporates a half dozen changes I judged to be
clarifications or suggestions consistent with the intent of the process
and procedures.  These changes are indicated in a section entitled
"Changes from RFC2727" in the document.  I have included the text of
that section below for your review.  Of course these changes can be
further clarified or removed after community review.

In addition, the mailing list will be used to discuss the following
suggestions that have been proposed but not yet incorporated:

    should there be a liaison from ISOC

    how do we handle disputes regarding the selection nominating
    committee members

    should NOMCOM announcements be sent to all IETF mailing lists or
    just the IETF general and announcements lists as it is done now

    there are a number of clarifications to the as yet unexercised
    recall process that have been proposed for consideration

Here are the changes currently incorporated:

   1.  A definition for "sitting member" was added.

   2.  An information retention policy was added requiring the Chair to
       submit a collection of all information related to the operation
       of and execution of the responsibilities of the nominating
       committee to the Internet Society President for long-term
       storage.  Previous Chairs have done this so the addition is just
       a formalization of existing practice.

   3.  A timeframe for the appointment of the Chair was added.  The
       timeframe could always be inferred from the text but to avoid
       confusion it is now explicitly stated.

   4.  Some explicit guidance was added regarding the timeframe for
       volunteering to serve on the nominating committee.

   5.  Some explicit guidance was added to the process of selecting the
       nominating committee members.  Among other things it must be
       possible to iterate the selection method more than just 10 times
       to ensure that unavailable or ineligible volunteers can be
       replaced.

   6.  It is now explicitly stated that no person may serve on both the
       IESG and the IAB concurrently.

Please join us on the mailing list indicated to discuss these issues.

Thanks,

Jim

--
James M. Galvin <[email-masked]>

---

From: Paul Hoffman / IMC <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2002 10:32:24 -0800

At 8:50 AM -0800 1/25/02, Dave Crocker wrote:
>At 10:34 AM 1/25/2002 -0500, James M Galvin wrote:
>Perhaps the best time for pursuing revisions to this document is 
>immediately after the nomcom has done it job.  That way you will 
>have a pool of very fresh suggestions to work from.
>
>(and this suggestion is coming from someone on the current nomcom 
>who is explicitly offering to participate on that basis, but also 
>feels that it would not be appropriate to participate in the middle 
>of the major nomcom deliberations.)

As someone who was on a previous nomcom, I fully agree with Dave. It 
would have been silly to think about this while in the midst of 
deliberations that could affect what I said.

--Paul Hoffman, Director
--Internet Mail Consortium

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2002 08:50:08 -0800

Perhaps the best time for pursuing revisions to this document is 
immediately after the nomcom has done it job.  That way you will have a 
pool of very fresh suggestions to work from.

(and this suggestion is coming from someone on the current nomcom who is 
explicitly offering to participate on that basis, but also feels that it 
would not be appropriate to participate in the middle of the major nomcom 
deliberations.)

d/

----------
Dave Crocker  <mailto:[email-masked]>
Brandenburg InternetWorking  <http://www.brandenburg.com>
tel +1.408.246.8253;  fax +1.408.273.6464

---

From: James M Galvin <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2002 15:53:02 -0500 (EST)

Two things in response to the issue of waiting to deal with the revised
NOMCOM document.

First, as a practical matter, I'm not inclined to believe there's a
significant issue.  If the timetable as specified in RFC2727 is
completed on schedule, the NOMCOM will be done in less than 3 weeks.
Even if they run over they'll be done before the Spring IETF and that's
only 7 weeks away.

The NOMCOM should be well on its way to completing its task and barring
anything exceptional I'm having trouble believing you're going to learn
anything about the process in the remaining 7 weeks that you have not
already learned.  And I say that based on having met with every NOMCOM
or some set of NOMCOM members after every NOMCOM since this document was
started.

Second, having said all that, I suspect in the best case this document
could be completed coincident with the NOMCOM completing its task at
hand.  If there really is a last minute issue or some issue that someone
really does not want to talk about until NOMCOM closes, folks can tell
me privately if necessary.  It's been done before and you probably never
noticed, right?

In any case, I'm certainly not going to force the document to close if
there's something that needs discussing.  Honestly, there's no
particular required timeframe for being done, although it would be nice
to be done before Minneapolis or in the worst case before the next
NOMCOM starts this summer.

Also, I don't think there's anything particularly contentious on the
list of issues ... but I could be wrong.  :-)

Jim