Subject: Notes from one member of the IAB on the current draft

From: Michael StJohns <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2003 13:42:12 -0500

Note: I do not subscribe to this list - please cc me on any relevant dialog.

The IAB encountered some issues with trying to follow RFC2727 during the 
confirmation process.  Without going into details inappropriate due to the 
confidentiality of that process, I would like to suggest some changes to 
the current draft.  While these changes originate mostly from me, other 
2002 IAB members have provided their input - e.g. input was not solicited 
from the new members of the IAB.

These suggested changes apply to 
draft 
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-nomcom-rfc2727bis-03.txt and 
are divided into two sections - procedure and policy.  Procedure deals with 
interpretations of existing rules, fixes ambiguities etc.  Policy delves 
into the realm of whys and wherefores.  The intent of the procedure 
comments is to eliminate some ambiguities in 2727 still not fixed in the 
referenced draft.  The intent of the policy comments is to place a stake 
where I personally believe certain interpretations should be taken.  Your 
mileage may vary.

Procedure:

 >> In Definitions add to the "sitting member" definition at the end:

"For the purposes of this document, the phrase 'sitting members of the IAB' 
excludes the Chair of the IETF.  The chair of the IETF is a sitting member 
of the IESG and is nominated and confirmed as such."

 >>In Definitions add the definitions of "qualified member"

"The term 'qualified members' means all the sitting members of a body minus 
any member who recuses him or herself for a particular question due to 
conflict of interest or for any other purpose. A sitting member MUST recuse 
or disqualify themselves from any question related to their own 
confirmation or tenure in office."

[NOTE:  The document should be reviewed and "qualified member" substituted 
for "sitting member" where appropriate]

 >>Replace in section 3, paragraph 5  paragraph beginning "Fourth, the 
term... " with:

"Fourth, the term of the confirmed candidate will be either:

1.  The remainder of the term if the vacancy occurs before or at the end of 
the First IETF.
2.  The remainder of the term plus a full term if the vacancy occurs after 
the First IETF."

 >>Section 3, paragraph 7, subparagraph 4 is deleted and replaced with"

"The confirming bodies decide their consent according to a mechanism of 
their own choosing, which must ensure that at least a majority of the 
qualified members confirm each nominee.

A majority of the qualified members of the confirming bodies must agree to 
confirm each individual nominee. The agreement must be decided within a 
reasonable time frame. The agreement may be decided by conducting a formal 
vote, by asserting consensus based on informal exchanges (email), or by 
whatever mechanism is used to conduct the normal business of the confirming 
body."

[The current language of half accepting or half rejecting can hang either 
by having half both accept and reject, or by not having either half accept 
or reject.  This language repairs that problem]

 >>Insert in section 3 as last paragraph -  8.

"With the exception of the IESG chair who is also, by rule, a member of the 
IAB, and except as provided in section 3 paragraph 4 (i.e. overlaps during 
the First IETF) a person may not simultaneously hold membership in both the 
IAB and the IESG. Any member of one body who is appointed to the other body 
as a result of the annual Nomcom process vacates their position on the 
first body no later than the end of the First IETF. Any member of one body 
who is appointed to the other as a result of a mid-term vacancy vacates 
their position on the first body immediately upon confirmation to the 
second body."

 >>Insert in section 3 as paragraph 6 and renumber all subsequent paragraphs:

"Nomcom-caused Mid-term Vacancies:

 From time to time the Nomcom may propose moving a serving Area Director or 
IAB member from one position to another. (E.g. moving a Transport AD to 
cover O&M). If the serving member is at the end of their normal term there 
is no change in procedures. Otherwise, this is treated as a mid-term 
vacancy and mid-term procedures are used with the following exceptions:

a) If the vacancy will occur on the IAB due to a move from the IAB to the 
IESG, the Nomcom may, upon confirmation of nominee/IAB member, submit for 
confirmation as part of the normal slate of candidates another nominee to 
complete the term of the departing IAB member. If the Nomcom declines to 
nominate a replacement as part of the annual process, the IAB may, at any 
time after the confirmation of the departing member, ask the Nomcom to fill 
the slot using mid-term procedures.

b) If the vacancy will occur on the IESG, either as a move to another IESG 
slot or as a move to the IAB, the Nomcom must use mid-term procedure rules. 
Most importantly, they must advertise the vacancy, and must consider all 
new candidates as equitably as any previously considered. The IESG chair is 
responsible for notifying the IETF Executive director of the vacancy and 
who in turn is responsible for asking the Nomcom select the replacement. 
The Nomcom is explicitly barred from proceeding without an explicit request 
from the IESG chair. The term of the nominee shall be for the remainder of 
the term of the vacated position."

 >>Insert at end of section 3 as paragraph 9:

[Note: the actual issue is that there is no succession plan or backup for 
the IETF chair unlike all other positions in the IETF.  It may be 
sufficient to say that the IESG selects an interim or that the position 
remains vacant, but it needs to be stated. The following paragraph builds 
on the current practice that the IAB confirms the IESG - it may not be 
appropriate for an interim appointment.]

If the IESG Chair position becomes vacant for any reason, the IAB shall 
appoint an acting IESG Chair from among those sitting members of the IESG 
who specifically remove themselves from consideration as a permanent 
replacement for the Chair and indicate a willingness to serve, or if none 
remove themselves or none indicate a willingness to serve, from the IESG as 
a whole. The IAB shall select the chair by simple majority vote of the 
qualified IAB members. If no candidate receives a majority of the votes, 
the selection will be repeated considering only those candidates who 
received the two highest number of votes. In the event no candidate 
receives a majority of votes, the candidate with the most number of votes 
shall be selected. In the event of a tie, the IAB chair shall direct who 
shall be selected from those candidates with the most number of votes. This 
selection shall be accomplished as expeditiously as possible, but not later 
than one week after the vacancy.

The acting Chair shall serve until the Nomcom completes the nomination 
process and until the IAB confirms the nominee.

 >>Policy:

[These relate to state of mind and intentions of the confirming bodies and 
may or may not be reasonable statements of the charge given to each 
confirming body for its part in the Nomcom process.  More than the 
procedure section, these mostly represent my stake in the ground rather 
than a coordinated position of the IAB]

 >>Add to end of Section 3, paragraph 7 subparagraph 4 as amended above:

"Each qualified member may base their decision on confirmation on any or 
all of: their own knowledge of the candidate; information provided by the 
Nomcom in support of the nomination; information provided by other members 
during discussion of the candidate; and their personal understanding of the 
requirements of the position. Confirmation should not be a rubber stamp of 
the Nomcom's selections, but a reasoned and reasonable consideration of the 
nominee's qualifications for the position. A vote to confirm is an 
affirmative action which should indicate the member's confidence in the 
ability of the nominee to accomplish the goals of the position and the work 
of the IETF."

 >>Replace section 3, paragraph 7 sub paragraph 3 paragraph beginning "If 
some or none..." with:

"The confirming body may ask for additional information about a nominee 
from the Nomcom to assist them in their deliberations. However, both the 
confirming body and Nomcom should refrain from discussions of the 
availability, qualification or characteristics of other possible candidates 
for the position."

---

From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 22 Mar 2003 20:57:58 -0800

--On 21. mars 2003 13:42 -0500 Michael StJohns <[email-masked]> 
wrote:

> b) If the vacancy will occur on the IESG, either as a move to another
> IESG slot or as a move to the IAB, the Nomcom must use mid-term procedure
> rules. Most importantly, they must advertise the vacancy, and must
> consider all new candidates as equitably as any previously considered.
> The IESG chair is responsible for notifying the IETF Executive director
> of the vacancy and who in turn is responsible for asking the Nomcom
> select the replacement. The Nomcom is explicitly barred from proceeding
> without an explicit request from the IESG chair. The term of the nominee
> shall be for the remainder of the term of the vacated position."

Nit: All versions of the nomcom documents say that the Nomcom is notified 
by the IETF Executive Director, not the IETF Chair. (the position "IESG 
Chair" does not exist - the IETF Chair chairs the IESG).

It's always been presumed that the ExDir was instructed by the IESG and IAB 
through mechanisms not documented in the Nomcom documents.

                     Harald

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2003 01:33:58 +0100

Most of these suggestions seem fine, but...

Michael StJohns wrote:

...
> availability, qualification or characteristics of other possible candidates 

I have no problem with this as *additional* text, but I would object
to removing the original "If some or none..." paragraph, which I
believe is very necessary in its present form.

   Brian

---

From: Michael StJohns <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2003 09:57:46 -0500

>believe is very necessary in its present form.

Hi Brian -

The text removed was:

>If some or none of the candidates submitted to a confirming
>            body are confirmed, the confirming body continues to consult
>            with the nominating committee both to explain the reason why
>            all the candidates were not confirmed and to understand the
>            nominating committee's rationale for the slate.  During the
>            course of the consultation the nominating committee may
>            re-examine the slate of candidates and may change it in any
>            way.

I find this paragraph to be particularly problematic.  The paragraph as 
written would tend to make the confirming bodies adjuncts of the Nomcom 
rather bodies with their own purpose.

Both the Nomcom and the confirming body have distinct and separate duties 
in the nominating process.  Having an on-going discussion about the 
relative merits of individual candidates seems to me to be a problem with 
separation of powers. If a confirming body chooses to not confirm a 
candidate, the rationale should be clear - i.e. the confirming body was 
unable to find a majority of members who were willing to confirm.  The 
individual members rationale for deciding not to confirm are relevant to 
the discussions within the confirming body, but are inappropriate to be 
shared outside that body.  [The confirming bodies are not made privy to the 
Nomcom discussions on the candidates, they're just provided with the output 
of that discussion.  It seems inappropriate for discussions/debate to be 
shared back from the confirming bodies to the Nomcom.]

Also, allowing the Nomcom to re-shuffle the slate seems also to be 
problematic as candidates are confirmed or rejected as individuals.

The Nomcom should offer its best candidates, make its case, and permit the 
confirming bodies to do their due diligence.  If a confirming body chooses 
not to confirm a candidate,  there shouldn't be an argument or discussion 
between the confirming body and the Nomcom as to whether either the Nomcom 
selection or the confirming body rejection was the right answer - that 
would denigrate the integrity of both processes and tend to lead to enmity 
between the two bodies.  If a candidate fails of selection, the Nomcom 
should then provide its next candidate.  Its probably useful, but shouldn't 
be required, for a confirming body to provide some general guidance as to 
why a candidate failed - it may be the confirming body may not have 
consensus on the reasons they failed to confirm, just that the candidate 
was not deemed acceptable.

---

From: Michael StJohns <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2003 10:01:22 -0500

*bleah*  I've got a version of this with edits all the way through fixing 
this (IESG Chair vs IETF Chair)... thought that was the one I submitted.

>Chair" does not exist - the IETF Chair chairs the IESG).

Right... thought I'd captured that.  The specific statement "Nomcom is 
explicitly barred from proceeding  without an explicit request from the 
IESG chair" was meant to be read in context with the previous "IESG chair 
is responsible for notifying the IETF Executive director".  Would "explicit 
notification" as opposed to "explicit request" be better here?

>It's always been presumed that the ExDir was instructed by the IESG and 
>IAB through mechanisms not documented in the Nomcom documents.

Yup.

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2003 17:37:54 +0100

Well, we plain disagree. I found this paragraph perfect when chairing
both the confirming bodies, and didn't have any issue of separation
of function.

   Brian

---

From: Michael StJohns <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2003 20:20:12 -0500

Let me break this down into pieces as to why I think this paragraph is 
fraught with difficulties.

At 05:37 PM 3/24/2003 +0100, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> > >            with the nominating committee both

"consult" has the definition "to ask the advice or opinion of" and neither 
are appropriate forms of interaction between bodies where some check or 
balance is desired.  Confirming body: "What do you think of our decision 
not to confirm foo? "  Nomcom: "Obviously you're mistaken and you really 
should consider these additional things that we forgot to tell you 
before."  Confirming body:  "But we've already rejected him/her so what's 
the point?"

Gleaning more information about candidates prior to the "vote" or whatever 
passes for the confirmation action by the confirming body seems to make 
sense.  E.g. Confirming body to Nomcom: "Could you give us more information 
about 'foo', specifically has 'foo' ever had experience doing X?"   Doing 
this after the fact for a candidate that's already been rejected seems to 
me to be a waste of time.  The paragraph immediately after this paragraph says

            The confirming body may reject individual candidates, in
            which case the nominating committee must select alternate
            candidates for the rejected candidates.

Which is pretty clear that once the candidate is rejected they may not be 
re-proposed.

The replacement text covering this is: ""The confirming body may ask for 
additional information about a nominee  from the Nomcom to assist them in 
their deliberations."

>  to explain the reason why
> > >            all the candidates were not confirmed and

There are a number of problems with this particular phrase.  As stated it 
implies there is a frameable consensus reason a candidate or candidates did 
not get confirmed.  In reality, each member of the confirming body may have 
their reasons why they voted for or against confirmation.  That argues 
against a consensus statement of the reason the confirming body didn't 
confirm.  Absent any other information,  the assumed reason should be "The 
confirming body was unable to find a majority who agreed the candidate was 
qualified for the position." which is a factual statement rather than an 
opinion.

The second problem is that the tone seems to suggest the confirming body 
have good reason for rejecting the candidate. I believe this needs to be 
reversed - that the confirming bodies have good reason to accept the 
candidates.   If you see the policy section of my original message I 
suggest some text related to the rationale for a members vote - specifically:
"Confirmation should not be a rubber stamp of the Nomcom's selections, but 
a reasoned and reasonable consideration of the nominee's qualifications for 
the position. A vote to confirm is an affirmative action which should 
indicate the member's confidence in the ability of the nominee to 
accomplish the goals of the position and the work of the IETF."

Each group has its strengths.  The Nomcom has the charge to form its slate 
based on the best knowledge it can glean from interviews, personal 
knowledge, discussion, resumes etc.  It brings a new point of view to the 
process of finding good people.  The confirming bodies have the advantage 
of continuity, longevity, and experience in the day to day operations of 
the IETF/IESG/IAB.  They provide a needed check on the Nomcom which might 
not have the benefit of the corporate memory, especially if random 
selection seeds the Nomcom with high proportions of relative newcomers.

>to understand the
> > >            nominating committee's rationale for the slate.

Confirming bodies confirm candidates, not the slate.  Again, this type of 
inquiry is better left to the discussion before the vote rather than after 
and should be part of the charge to the Nomcom.  Section 5 subsection 14 says

        " The nominating committee advises the confirming bodies of their
         candidates, specifying a single candidate for each open position
         and testifying as to how each candidate meets the qualifications
         of an open position.

         For each candidate, the testimony must include a brief statement
         of the qualifications for the position that is being filled,
         which may be exactly the qualifications that were requested.  If
         the qualifications differ from the desired qualifications
         originally requested a brief statement explaining the difference
         must be included.

         The testimony may include either or both a brief resume of the
         candidate or a brief summary of the deliberations of the
         nominating committee."

I'd modify the first paragraph of this section slightly to include a 
requirement the nomcom describe any external factors to the qualifications 
specific to a position- e.g. not more than X new people desired, some 
security clue in general, etc.  The confirming body can of course ask for 
more information, but ask BEFORE making its decision.

>During the

This implies that the candidates already confirmed by the confirming body 
could be withdrawn.  I think that's a *really really really* bad idea and 
unfair to the confirmed candidates.

However, it would seem to be permissible for the nomcom to take someone who 
was just confirmed (AFTER discussing it with the confirmed candidate) and 
offer him/her as a candidate for the slot where another candidate was 
rejected.  E.g. A candidate the Nomcom considers qualified either as a Area 
A AD or an Area B AD is proposed as Area A AD and confirmed, another 
candidate is proposed as Area B AD is rejected.  The Nomcom could ask the 
confirmed Area A AD if he/she was willing to be proposed as Area B AD, 
propose him/her and in addition propose a new Area A AD.

And no, I don't think the Nomcom can do this unilaterally - once the 
candidate is confirmed, the slot is filled and the Nomcom shouldn't get to 
say "we were just kidding, we didn't mean it" regardless of what happens 
with other slots.

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2003 18:18:01 +0100

Mike, I can only repeat that I simply don't see any of these aspects as problems,
except for one logical issue you point out:

> This implies that the candidates already confirmed by the confirming body could be withdrawn.  I think that's a *really
> really really* bad idea and unfair to the confirmed candidates.  

Well, all this process remains under the seal of confidentiality, so
the confirmed candidates would never know. But I agree, it would be very
bizarre to withdraw a nomination at this stage, although I can imagine
an AD nominee being renominated to a different Area or even to IETF Chair,
after the confirming body rejected a nominee. So we need a sentence
that enables NomCom to react flexibly to a rejection, without endorsing
egregious actions.

   During the course of the consultation, the nominating committee may
   adjust the slate of candidates in response to the confirming body's
   partial confirmation, by replacing the nominees who were not already
   confirmed, and in the case of the IESG, possibly by changing the positions 
   to which already confirmed candidates are appointed.

     Brian

Michael StJohns wrote:
> 
> Let me break this down into pieces as to why I think this paragraph is fraught with difficulties.
> 
> "consult" has the definition "to ask the advice or opinion of" and neither are appropriate forms of interaction between bodies
> where some check or balance is desired.  Confirming body: "What do you think of our decision not to confirm foo? "  Nomcom:
> "Obviously you're mistaken and you really should consider these additional things that we forgot to tell you before."
> Confirming body:  "But we've already rejected him/her so what's the point?"
> 
> Gleaning more information about candidates prior to the "vote" or whatever passes for the confirmation action by the
> confirming body seems to make sense.  E.g. Confirming body to Nomcom: "Could you give us more information about 'foo',
> specifically has 'foo' ever had experience doing X?"   Doing this after the fact for a candidate that's already been rejected
> seems to me to be a waste of time.  The paragraph immediately after this paragraph says
> 
> Which is pretty clear that once the candidate is rejected they may not be re-proposed.
> 
> The replacement text covering this is: ""The confirming body may ask for additional information about a nominee  from the
> Nomcom to assist them in their deliberations."
> 
> There are a number of problems with this particular phrase.  As stated it implies there is a frameable consensus reason a
> candidate or candidates did not get confirmed.  In reality, each member of the confirming body may have their reasons why they
> voted for or against confirmation.  That argues against a consensus statement of the reason the confirming body didn't
> confirm.  Absent any other information,  the assumed reason should be "The confirming body was unable to find a majority who
> agreed the candidate was qualified for the position." which is a factual statement rather than an opinion.
> 
> The second problem is that the tone seems to suggest the confirming body have good reason for rejecting the candidate. I
> believe this needs to be reversed - that the confirming bodies have good reason to accept the candidates.   If you see the
> policy section of my original message I suggest some text related to the rationale for a members vote - specifically:
> 
>      "Confirmation should not be a rubber stamp of the Nomcom's selections, but a reasoned and reasonable consideration of the
>      nominee's qualifications for the position. A vote to confirm is an affirmative action which should indicate the member's
>      confidence in the ability of the nominee to accomplish the goals of the position and the work of the IETF."
> 
> Each group has its strengths.  The Nomcom has the charge to form its slate based on the best knowledge it can glean from
> interviews, personal knowledge, discussion, resumes etc.  It brings a new point of view to the process of finding good
> people.  The confirming bodies have the advantage of continuity, longevity, and experience in the day to day operations of the
> IETF/IESG/IAB.  They provide a needed check on the Nomcom which might not have the benefit of the corporate memory, especially
> if random selection seeds the Nomcom with high proportions of relative newcomers.
> 
> > to understand the
> Confirming bodies confirm candidates, not the slate.  Again, this type of inquiry is better left to the discussion before the
> vote rather than after and should be part of the charge to the Nomcom.  Section 5 subsection 14 says
> 
> I'd modify the first paragraph of this section slightly to include a requirement the nomcom describe any external factors to
> the qualifications specific to a position- e.g. not more than X new people desired, some security clue in general, etc.  The
> confirming body can of course ask for more information, but ask BEFORE making its decision.
> 
> > During the
> This implies that the candidates already confirmed by the confirming body could be withdrawn.  I think that's a *really really
> really* bad idea and unfair to the confirmed candidates.
> 
> However, it would seem to be permissible for the nomcom to take someone who was just confirmed (AFTER discussing it with the
> confirmed candidate) and offer him/her as a candidate for the slot where another candidate was rejected.  E.g. A candidate the
> Nomcom considers qualified either as a Area A AD or an Area B AD is proposed as Area A AD and confirmed, another candidate is
> proposed as Area B AD is rejected.  The Nomcom could ask the confirmed Area A AD if he/she was willing to be proposed as Area
> B AD, propose him/her and in addition propose a new Area A AD.
> 
> And no, I don't think the Nomcom can do this unilaterally - once the candidate is confirmed, the slot is filled and the Nomcom
> shouldn't get to say "we were just kidding, we didn't mean it" regardless of what happens with other slots.