Subject: Draft of NomCom Minuites

From: Avri Doria <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 02 Dec 2002 23:11:07 +0100

Draft of Minutes from nomCom Meeting at IETF55:

Notes taken by Elliot Lear
Meeting Chaired by Avri Doria

  (Note to be removed before sending to [email-masked]:
  Slides currently at:
  http://www.cdt.luth.se/babylon/ietf55/nomcom-ietf55.pdf .ppt)

Jim Galvin discussed the differences between
draft-ietf-nomcom-rfc2727bis-01.txt and -02

Several Issues were brought up during this discussion:

  One issue that was discussed was whether the definitions of the roles
  for advisors and liaisons reflected current practice or not.  There was
  a disagreement on this point between 2 previous NomCom chairs: Don
  Eastlake and Avri Doria.  Jim maintained that the current text reflects
  the intent of RFC2727.  The old version indicated explicitly who votes
  on what, while new version specifies that only voting volunteers vote on
  candidate issues and everything else is open to other members. The -02
  version lists explicit responsibilities of each role.  This is new text.
  The issue needs to be reviewed by the WG list.

  Phil Roberts brought up an issue about filling replacements.
  The current random selection process is renewable, but needs
  clarification about how to reinitiate the system.  Right now someone
  can figure out who the next choices would be.  Jim pointed out that
  this is covered in the -02 draft with an additional week to reset
  the random process.

  WG participants were asked to review the latest draft as it contains
  new language in many areas.

After the review of the -02 draft, open issues that had not yet been
resolved were discussed.

The first issue involved the qualification for volunteering with the
basic question being was attendance at 2 out 3 of the last IETF
meetings a sufficient criteria.

Comments:

  Joel Halpern observed that we seem to have a problem of not getting enough
  experienced IETF participants on the nomcom.  We need to encourage more
  participation.  He  didn't like the idea of 2 pools.  Maybe 4 out of 6 
IETF
  meeting would be better then 2 out of 3?

  Don Eastlake observed that a jury pool model would not work because
  the commitment involved was too substantial.

  Dave Allen commented in favor of allowing people who had attended many
  IETFs to be included, the big N proposal, even they did not meet the
  recent attendance requirements.  He further commented that the process
  could arbitrarily select people from one area in the same way it has it
  has selected people from one company.

  Mark Allman agreed that the 2 out of the last 3 rule is insufficient.
  Would like to see some weighting of rules for including management
  experience.  Would like to see something that has a little bit longer
  time scale.

  George Swallow commented that after 2 IETF meetings he didn't have a
  clue as to how the IETF was organized.

  Michael Richardson, currently on the NomCom, commented that the current
  NomCom doesn't suffer from lack of experience.  But if you've been to
  one, missed one, and then went to a third, then that's a different
  problem.  Things aren't all that broken.  He believes that self
  selection already occurs, based on whether people believe they know
  what's going on.

  Don Eastlake stated that as long as the nomcom has a finite number of
  volunteers there will always be some bias in some way or another.  It's
  okay for it to be imperfect.  Not sure he'd be happy with an IETF that
  ran purely smoothly.

  Harald suggested two changes:
   - add a statement to the oral tradition 'if you don't know how the IETF
     works don't volunteer for NomCom.
   - change from 2 out of 3 IETFs to 3 out of 5 IETFs

  A hum was requested on the 3 out of 5 versus of 2 out of 3.  The 3 out
  of 5 was the unanimous view of the room.

  John Klensin commented that there were 2 reasons to volunteer.
  1 is obligation.
  2 is that one has an ax to grind.
  He's worried about the "don't volunteer" folk self selecting out in
  favor of the ax grinders.

  A hum was requested on adding a statement to the oral tradition of
  "don't volunteer if you don't know what's going on."
  The group seemed to lean toward adding the statement.

  The chair reminded the meeting that a hum is just an indication.  This
  all goes out to the mailing list.

  Jim Galvin asked what goal is the group trying to achieve?

  Harald responded that since he made the suggestion he should say
  something.  One property of mailing list discussions is that they fly
  off in all directions.  It's easier to discuss when you have a specific
  proposal.  So he made a specific proposal.  The problems that is to be
  solved is that we want people who have more experience just than 6
  months participation volunteering for the NomCom.

  Eliot asked why 3 out of 5?  Why not 4 out of 6 or 5 out of 7, etc?

  Jim mentioned pool of people increases as you go from 2/3 to 3/5, etc.

  Avri responded that we don't really know that.

  George Swallow mentioned that though he hummed in favor of 3/5 he would
  also support requiring a minimum of having attended 5 meeting ever , AND
  attendance at 2 out of the last 3 meetings.

  Avri pointed out that this that would bias the selection procedure in
  favor of long time participants.

  Harald said we should ask the secretariat for numbers.

  Avri asked if the room favored adding a requirements for increased
  number of meeting attended in the past as George recommended.  The room
  was not in favor of the proposal.

  Ron Da Silva had a last comment regarding language stating that it's
  important to encourage people to understand the process.  He suggested
  that the oral tradition indicate where people could learn about the
  process and recommend that they then reconsider volunteering.

--
The next issue involved limiting the number of participants from a single
group or company

In the WG list discussions to date, there was no consensus on definition
of company, group, or organization, but but there seem to be consensus
that the maximum number should be 2.

Was a strict definition of control group necessary and should other
diversity or lack there of be considered?

The meeting reviewed some very legalistic language that had been
proposed on the list.

Comments:

  Michael Richardson thought that it seems like a good idea.
  Understanding that this would be done only at selection time, and that
  subsequent acquisitions or change of employment would not impact
  membership.

  Ross Callon asked if all the various wings of the U.S. or other
  governments would count as one organization.

  John Klensin commented that when ANSI went down this path for balloting,
  their first cut labeled the U.S. as a single entity, but that would have
  cut attendance to nothing.  Same issue involving large companies with
  separate divisions.

  Ross Callon likes the rule.  Doesn't mind U.S. government agencies
  being counted separately.

  Don Eastlake doesn't expect perfection.  It is unfortunate that we 
have to
  do something like this.  Where there appears to be substantial bias or the
  appearance such that people bend over backwards to avoid it, then public
  oversight is important.  If people try to game the system then people
  will notice.  When the pools were small, this was impossible.  If you
  have 100 volunteers where 10 or more are from the same company, the
  probability of 4 or more from the same company is 1.3%.  With multiple
  large companies, that probably increases to 5% or so.

  John Klensin is suspicious of measuring probability with reality.  We
  should say that packing behavior is inappropriate.  We should consider a
  mechanism for challenging a list of selected members, and a way to
  challenge the company to indicate whether it was packing or not.

  Jim Galvin responded there is in fact a one week challenge period after
  the announcement, but there is no process for actually challenging.

  Don Eastlake believes the criteria needs to be public and challengeable,
  but only for a brief period of time so that you have a stable nomcom.
  Not sure there is a corporate conspiracy, it's more word of
  mouth.  E.g. he works for a company that gives bonuses based on standards
  activity.  Perhaps there are companies who would remunerate based on
  their involvement.  Wants some sort of rule like what is proposed.

  John Klensin would prefer to rely on integrity of individuals.

  Steve Silverman asked "as a consultant, how does he fit in"?

  Avri responded one would state affiliation, so it's up to the individual,
  and is subject to challenge.

  Lou Berger commented we have an existence proof that community pressure
  does not work.  He seconds the rule.  No subjectivity to the proposal.
  No bias to particular organizations.

  Joel Halpern stated that there are other dimensions as to why we need
  such a rule.  If companies believe it is possible to pack the nomcom,
  then they will try in order to protect themselves.  And we need to make
  it clear that they can't.

  John Klensin completely agrees with Joel.  But he doesn't think this is
  the right solution.  He disagrees that public pressure doesn't work.
  We're creating lawyer bate through the limitation as it is worded.  If
  we introduce a formal procedure then the courts will decide.

  Harald said that at the time of volunteering a person states their
  affiliation, the person doing the picking rejects people who have the
  same string in their affiliation.  Put the onus on the individual, not
  on the process.  Joel says this proposal has too much detail, but agrees
  it should be made mechanical.

  Marshall Rose claimed that we've already crossed the lawyer bate
  threshold.

  Joel Halpern argued that John's point is valid, but that we can fix it
  by stating that this is a best effort and not perfect.

  John Klensin responded that if a company decides that it's in its
  corporate advantage to game the procedure, they will do it.  The rule is
  too fuzzy.  Get people to self identify, again putting the onus on the
  individual, and then use a challenge process.

  Eliot Lear was concerned about both the perception and the potential
  reality of a government packing the nomcom.  Depending on the
  administration of a government this could be the case.

  Jeff Hultzman stated it doesn't hurt us if more than 2 folk from the
  same government can't serve.  We're not ANSI.

  Avri stated that seems to be a consensus for some sort of a rule,
  choosing the middle path of having people self identify and remove
  themselves.  Asked if that was correct?

  Marshall Rose pointed out that there are 2 issues.
   - Level of formality.
   - Voluntary or mandatory removal.

  Don Eastlake said we need a rule that can be executed by a person, not
  a computer.

  Lou Berger said he was confused by the summary.  Informal or formal?  If
  formal, what's the enforcement mechanism?

  Avri said she believed legalistic language was more a problem than an
  advantage.

  Lou Berger said we ask the ISOC counsel to help us here.

  Avri asked if we want legal language?

  Lou Berger said we still need to ask the ISOC to review the language to
  keep us from getting into trouble.

  Harald informed the group that the language had been reviewed.

  Eliot added that once you have legalistic language, then you need
  lawyers to interpret it, and then you have blood in the water.

--

The next issue involved the question of whether there should  be a
process for resolving challenges over volunteer selection?

The current draft allows time is allowed for challenge
but does not indicate a specific process. Especially if control group
notion is added, challenges might be more likely.

The question is whether resolving any challenges should be left to
nomcom chair?

Comments:

  Jim Galvin responded that to be precise, there is no ADDITIONAL process.
  Anyone can move for a challenge, and they use the ordinary IETF appeals
  process, with the exception is that the challenge is to be directed at
  the IETF chair.  It's also worth noting, there's no defined time period
  for the IETF appeals process.

  Eliot Lear commented that maybe there should be some time frame.

  Marshall asked Harald how long would it take for him to resolve a
  challenge?

  Harald that it depends.  If the challenge was specious, up to 2 weeks.
  If it was a serious issue, it would be harder to bound.  There has never
  been a challenge to deal with.

  Marshall responded that we have a serious problem, because the IETF
  appeals process wasn't designed for this purpose.

  Harald said we might want to add language saying that makes it 
possible for
  the nomcom to operate with those who were not challenged.

  Jim pointed out that the NomCom is permitted to continue forward, but
  they cannot submit a slate to a confirming body while a challenge is in
  process.  Dispute resolution process has a time limit of 2 weeks.

  Avri pointed out that using the IESG means the possible candidates
  could become the judges in this process.

  Steve Coya suggested going right to the IETF chair and not involving
  the entire IESG.  Harald commented that he objects.

  Lou Berger suggested it go from the NomCom chair to the ISOC President.

  Jim Galvin suggested that the NomCom chair runs the process, so it would
  have to be the ISOC president that handled a challenge.

  Don Eastlake pointed out that it would not necessarily be an adversarial
  process in every case.  The chair should be given opportunity to correct
  mistakes.

  A Hum was in favor of Lou Berger's proposals.

---

The next issue involved mid term vacancy procedures

A new procedures has already been documented but has not seen much
discussion.  The new procedure involves a 3 month overlap for handling
midterm vacancy.  There would be no overlap for handling regular
process.

Comments:

  Scott Bradner noted that there is potential for a great deal of
  confusion. Perhaps it would be better for  a seat to sit idle.

  Harald mentioned that a possible vacancy of both members of an IESG area
  could be a serious problem.  In fact it would be disastrous to have 6
  month vacancies.

  Scott Bradner mentioned that the NomCom only acts when the IESG or IAB
  informs them of a vacancy.

  Jim responded that the IAB or IESG didn't have a choice as to which
  NomCom filled a vacancy.  But the IESG or IAB could choose to not to fill
  a vacancy by not informing the NomCom.

  Leslie Daigle pointed out that we must be mindful of what happened in
  the routing area last year.

  Jim Galvin agreed that we should have overlapping NomComs, but that is
  a slippery slope.

  Phil Roberts commented that if you have two NomComs going at the same
  time, one of which is filling a midterm vacancy and the other is filling
  the other vacancy in the same area, it seems strange, and this might
  lead to poor dynamics between the two people who are selected.  If you
  reconstitute a NomCom after they've gone dormant, there is more of a risk
  of having to find replacement volunteers.

  A hum was requested in favor of leaving wording of document as is. A
  hum was inconclusive about adding a restriction about serving in
  consecutive 15 month NomComs.

  Scott Bradner pointed out that question was perhaps confusing.

  Eliot Lear addressed Phil Roberts' point saying that hopefully the old
  NomCom would fill midterm vacancies prior to the new NomCom submits its
  slate.

---

The next topic concerned the recall procedure of IESG/IAB members, and
how it gets initiated

The current procedure is susceptible to DOS attack.  A mechanism needed
to protect against this is needed.  The proposal presented involved
requiring that 2% of average attendance sign a petition in order to
initiate the current recall procedure.

Comments:

  Don Eastlake thought the procedure should be 2% of number of QUALIFIED
  people according to the 2 out of 3 meetings rule, and that it should
  not be based only on attendance.

  Harald supported Don's change.

  John Klensin indicated that if we are going to have petition lists the
  list should be public.

  Steve Silverman asked if anyone had done this? [NO] He suggested that 3
  people instead of one, would be ok.  But questioned requiring 40?

  Marshall explained that this procedure was as added as a last minute
  afterthought.  Surprising no one has invoked it.

  Harald asked how many people are needed?  Thinking about the end game,
  is there a situation where someone should be removed from office without
  40 people being able to agree. Should you really want to have that
  person removed?

  David Puzzalo liked the proposal but wanted to check that one could not
  do it by getting "40 high school friends".

  Avri pointed out that the proposal called for the petition signers to be
  qualified to serve on the NomCom

  A hum was generally in favor of the proposal

The meeting was adjourned.

--

---

From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 03 Dec 2002 08:43:14 +0100

just one nit:

>   Harald informed the group that the language had been reviewed.

the language of the present RFC has been reviewed.
the language of the next RFC will be reviewed prior to adoption.