Subject: Proposals for closing open issues

From: Avri Doria <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 06 Nov 2003 17:49:09 +0900

The following are proposal for ways to close the Issues remaining open  
from the last call: 1, 2, 3, 10, 17, 24

In cases where there was a proposal made at some point in the process,  
that proposal has been brought forward.  In a few cases where there was  
no specific proposal, one is suggested.

These proposals, and any issues with those proposal that come on the  
list, will be discussed as part of the WG meeting in Minneapolis.

thanks

a.

------------------
IESG Issue 1:
------------------

> The first 2 substantive issue was raised by Margaret Wasserman:
> -------------------------------------------------------------
>> 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?  There are two issues
> here:
>
> 1) I think that the "description of the desirable set of  
> qualifications"
>  should be posted publicly, along with the list of open positions when
>  the call for nominations is sent.
>
> 2) The IESG and IAB should know, unambiguously, whether or not the
>  information will be publicly disseminated before providing it.
>

History: This issue was not discussed

Questions:

Should it be mandatory that the required qualifications list be made  
public?

  If not, should the required qualifications list be confidential?

DISCUSSION SO FAR:   5 comments

The information should not be confidential.  It should be published.

Recommended wording change submitted on the list:

OLD NEW:

    14.  The Chair obtains the list of IESG and IAB positions to be
	  reviewed and a description of the desirable qualifications for

         those positions. This information is announced, along with a
         solicitation for names of volunteers from the IETF community
         willing to serve on the nominating committee.

NEW:

    14.  The Chair obtains the list of IESG and IAB positions to be
	  reviewed and a description of the desirable qualifications for
            those positions. This information is announced on
            [email-masked], along with a solicitation for names
            of volunteers from the IETF community willing to serve on
           the nominating committee.

Is this wording acceptable?

***********
Proposal:
***********

Accept wording change originally proposed

> ------------------------------------------------------------------

-----------------
IESG Issue 2
-----------------
> raised by Margaret Wasserman:

>> 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
>
> This section indicates that a position may be vacated and filled
> without the community being notified that a position is open.  IMO, no
> position should be filled without public notice that the position is
> open and a public call for nominations.
>
> I understand one shool of thought that says that this is okay for IAB
> positions during the normal selection cycle.  Because IAB members
> don't have separate responsibilities, it _might_ be okay to pick 6 IAB
> members from a candidate pool for 5 open positions, for example.
> However, even in this case, the community might want to know if a
> person with a particular specialty/area of expertise was moving, so
> that folks with that type of expertise could be nominated.
>
> This section would also be problematic for IESG positions.  This could
> arise in any case where one IESG position is filled by a sitting IESG
> member who is not up for renewal.  For example, consider a situation
> where the IESG chair does not volunteer for another term and is
> replaced by a sitting IESG member who is not up for renewal.  Even
> though there are two ADs for most areas, the ADs often divide up the
> area into logical sections, requiring different expertise for each
> position.
>
> There are also issues with filling any postition according to this
> section if it is applied to interim vacancies.  For example, the
> nomcom should not be empowered to move an IAB member to the IESG to
> fill and interim vacancy and replace the IAB member without making a
> public call for nominations for the open IAB position.

Background:

The issue was first brought up
     http://lists.elistx.com/archives/ietf-nomcom/200303/msg00020.html

>>>
>>>> >>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."

The recommended text change was never discussed on the list.

The issue surrounding the 'poaching' issue was discussed but the  
discussion centered on the serialization described in 2727bis-07.    
However, none of the discussions were about the result of moving  
someone from a non open seat on the IESG to fill an IAB slot and thus  
having to fill an unannounced IESG slot.

Questions:

Does the document need to be explicit about treating the replacement of  
an IESG member in an non open chair differently the the replacement of  
an IAB member in a non open seat?

Do full mid term replacement rules, including public announcement apply  
to this case?

DISCUSSION SO FAR:  8 messages

The existing text has been interpreted differently by different  
commentaries.  This is an indication that no matter what the resolution  
on the substantive issue, the text needs to clarified.

Several agree that the vacancy should be treated as a mid-term vacancy  
with announcement of the vacancy.

There is an indication that the case filling an incomplete term IAB  
seat is different from filling an incomplete term IESG seat.

There is an argument that it should not be difficult to move people  
into different positions and therefore the procedure should allow  
quasi-simultaneous filling of created openings.

Several fixes were suggested:

A. It is consistent with these rules for the Nominating Committee
to nominate a sitting Area Director to a different Area and  
simultaneously
nominate a new Area Director to the position thus vacated, or to
nominate a sitting IAB member to an Area Director position and
simultaneously nominate a new IAB member to the position thus vacated.
Any other moves between positions must be treated as resignations
that create mid-term vacancies.

B. Fix:  If the type of position (e.g. security AD) was advertised, the  
Nomcom
can take action to fill it from the set of candidates it already has for
that type of slot.  If the type of position was not advertised (e.g.
because it was an off year and there was only one of that type) it must  
not
take action to fill it and it must treat it as a mid-term
vacancy.  However, once the candidate has accepted appointment to the  
new
position and once the IAB has confirmed them and the announcement has  
been
made, the Nomcom can immediately begin the process of selection for
replacement.

C. Other fix:  Dual Membership on both the IAB and IESG is prohibited.   
A
nominee who accepts appointment to one body automatically vacates their
position on the other body not later than noon on the last of the First
IETF meeting.  As long as the to-be-vacated position type has been
advertised, the Nomcom shall take action to fill it.

Note: the issue of prohibiting dual membership was discussed previously  
in
the WG and a decision was made to discourage but not prohibit.

Status:  This issue has not yet been resolved

**********
Proposal
**********

Accept language originally proposed.  Specifically:

"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."

> ----------------------------------------------------------------

------------------
IESG Issue 3;
------------------
> The third substantive issue was raised by Thomas Narten:
>
>>        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
>>        or issues to the Chair of the nominating committee immediately.
>>        If they can not resolve the issue between themselves liaisons
>>        must report the issue to their respective bodies.  If their
>>        respective body agrees that there is an issue the liaison must
>>        report it according to the dispute resolution process stated
>>        elsewhere in this document.
>
> I worry that there will be problems with the above in practice. In
> particular, the text requires that a liaison report problems back to
> their respective group (i.e., IESG or IAB) before invoking the formal
> dispute resolution mechanism. But confidentiality rules rather limit
> what the liaison can say to their body, and in the case where dispute
> resolution may need invoking, it seems like details will be
> important. I worry that this will create problems in practice, with it
> being unclear what can be said. And if that is the case, it is unclear
> what value the discussion within the respective I* would actually
> have. This is perhaps more a problem for the IESG, since it has no
> confirming role, but it seems like a general issue.
>
> There are ways of dealing with this, but I'm not sure what is best or
> what the WG might think. Some initial thoughts:
>
> - I note that the current wording doesn't mention the obvious, i.e.,
>  have the liaisons and previous chair get together and discuss
>  before escalating. One could also have the liaison (independently)
>  decide whether to formally appeal after such a consultation. This
>  avoids the confidentiality issue and would seem like a necessary
>  check as part of escalating issues.
>
> - add some wording saying that confidentiality rules allow sharing of
>  info as needed to assess whether to file a formal complaint.

Background:

This particular issue was never discussed, but the issue of  
confidentiality was frequently discussed in many different contexts.   
Section 10, Security, discusses the extension of confidentiality to  
those outside the Nomcom when necessary, though it is not explicit that  
this extension would also apply to the IAB, IESG or ISOC in the case of  
Nomcom operational issues.

I also note that in the text Thomas quoted, it does state that after  
reporting the Issues to the chair or committee they only escalate if '  
they cannot resolve the issue between themselves'.  It is, perhaps,  
implicit in this that they can and should discuss with the past chair.

Questions:

Does content need to be added to the text to  allow extension of  
confidentiality to the Liaison in the case of reporting issues having  
to do with the internal operations of the Nomcom?

Does content need to be added to explicitly state that liaisons should  
consult among themselves and with the past chair before escalating an  
issue to their respective I-groups?

DISCUSSION SO FAR:  1 comment

Doing so would blur the lines in confidentiality.  Recommendation that  
the clarification mentioned above be added to the text.

**********
Proposal:
**********

Old Text

        Liaisons from the IESG, IAB, and Internet Society Board of
         Trustees (if one was appointed) are expected to review the
         operation and executing process of the nominating committee and
         to report any concerns or issues to the Chair of the nominating
         committee immediately.  If they can not resolve the issue
         between themselves, liaisons must report the issue to their
         respective bodies.  If their respective body agrees that there
         is an issue the liaison must report it according to the dispute
         resolution process stated elsewhere in this document.

New Text

         Liaisons from the IESG, IAB, and Internet Society Board of
         Trustees (if one was appointed) are expected to review the
         operation and executing process of the nominating committee and
         to report any concerns or issues to the Chair of the nominating
         committee immediately.  If the Chair in consultation with a  
sub-group
         composed of the liaisons cannot resolve
         the issue, then the Chair must report it according to the  
dispute
         resolution process stated elsewhere in this document.

> ----------------------------------------------------------------------- 
> ---

Issue 4-26 are not considered 'showstoppers' but should be addressed  
before sending the document back to the IESG

-----------------
IESG Issue 10
-----------------

>
>>        conducted.  A member may recalled if at least a quorum of all
>>        committee members agree, including the vote of the member being
>>        recalled.
>
> What does this mean? simple majority if there is a quorum? (I ask
> because in most cases this document doesn't proscribe rules, leaving
> that to the nomcom to decide.)

Background:  While the document discusses the quorum that must be  
present for a vote, the actual voting mechanisms are to be be  
determined by the Nomcom itself.

Question: should text be added making an explicit rule for the voting  
in a Nomcom recall be specified in the document.

DISCUSSION SO FAR:  2 comments

2 answers of yes.
- suggestion of 2/3 or majority
- comment that 2/3 was too stringent.

***********
Proposal:
***********

Old Text

         Regardless of the circumstances, if individual committee members
         can not work out their differences between themselves, the
         entire committee may be called upon to discuss and review the
         circumstances.  If a resolution is not forthcoming a vote may be
         conducted.  A member may recalled if at least a quorum of all
         committee members agree, including the vote of the member being
         recalled.

New Text

        Regardless of the circumstances, if individual committee members
         can not work out their differences between themselves, the
         entire committee may be called upon to discuss and review the
         circumstances.  If a resolution is not forthcoming a vote may be
         conducted.  A member may recalled if 2/3  of all
         committee members agree to the recall

-----------------
IESG Issue 17
-----------------

>
>>        The confirmation process must be completed at least one month
>>        prior to the First IETF.
>
> s/must/should/ other parts of the document imply should on this topic.

Questions;

Is this an editorial or content change?

Is the change accepted?

Answers so far: 2

- both answers:  It is content not editorial

- 1 answer: without change leaves situation open
- 1 answer: intentionally left open

Further discussion ?

***********
Proposal:
***********

Leave text as written.

-----------------
IESG Issue 24
-----------------

>
>>      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.

Questions:

Should the question of starting time for IAB be separated from the  
question of IESG?

Should it be pointed out that since IAB members do not replace specific  
IAB members, it is consistent that new IAB members may overlap with  
retiring IAB members?

DISCUSSION SO FAR: 2 comments

- 1 that the IAB should be a separate case and should happen at the end  
of the week
- 1 that the current, flexible, "during the week" handoff be retained

***********
Proposal:
***********

Suggested change, also fixing the grammar nit:

OLD:

                  A member may recalled if at least a quorum of all
        committee members agree, including the vote of the member being
        recalled.

NEW:

        A member may be recalled if at least a quorum of all committee
        members (defined above as 75%) vote for the recall.

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 06 Nov 2003 17:24:43 +0100

In the interests of closure, I am happy to accept all Avri's suggested resolutions.

    Brian

> no specific proposal, one is suggested.

<snip>

---

From: Michael StJohns <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 06 Nov 2003 11:44:54 -0500

>The information should not be confidential.  It should be published.

Specifically, it should be published as part of the announcement 
information, rather than as part of the solicitation for nominations.

Rationale:  While the information is important for the IETF participants to 
understand the choices, publishing it prior to the nomcom making a choice 
may result less than useful public discussion of that criteria and 
thrashing (as in "page thrashing") of the process.

>Is this wording acceptable?

No - see above.

OK.

>>----------------------------------------------------------------------- ---
>

*sigh*  Still too ambiguous.

"A member may be recalled if at least 2/3 of the mandated members (i.e. the 
voting members, chair, past chair representative, IESG and IAB liaisons) 
minus the member under consideration for recall concur."

This gets around the case of trying to decide whether an invited attendee 
(e.g. this years ISOC liaison) gets a vote or not.  3/4 of 13 (10 + 4 -1) 
is 10 - that seems a bit high.  2/3 of 13 is going to be 9 - that's 
probably more reasonable.

>To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription
>manager: <http://lists.elistx.com/subscribe>

---

From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 06 Nov 2003 15:10:47 -0800

I disagree with Mike.

I think publication of the requirements at call for nomination time is 
useful. The IESG and IAB is responsible for wording them; once they're 
published, Nomcom has no responsibility for them, and the IESG & IAB can't 
call them back - I think that's good.

I support the suggested resolution.

--On 6. november 2003 11:44 -0500 Michael StJohns <[email-masked]> 
wrote:

> Rationale:  While the information is important for the IETF participants
> to understand the choices, publishing it prior to the nomcom making a
> choice may result less than useful public discussion of that criteria and

---

From: Geoff Huston <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 07 Nov 2003 10:24:29 +1100

A countervailing view is that the generation of the current
requirements in the IETF leadership and the associated
desireable qualifications for the vacant positions
rests with the Nomcom as an outcome of its interactions with
the community during its consultative process.

At the very least the Nomcom should not interpret any such
statement of 'desireable qualifications" as being a fixed constraint
placed upon the process, and the Nomcom should be able to
refine such an input to match what it is hearing from the broader
IETF community as to current requirements and associated
desireable qualifications for vacant positions.

Geoff

At 03:10 PM 6/11/2003 -0800, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
>--On 6. november 2003 11:44 -0500 Michael StJohns 
><[email-masked]> wrote:
>

---

From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 06 Nov 2003 15:57:06 -0800

> the community during its consultative process.

I agree, and disagree that it is countervailing :-)
The nomcom is responsible for using *its* judgment.
But I think that what the IESG and IAB tells them should be public, and 
made public at the time it's written, not 6 months later.

> desireable qualifications for vacant positions.

Yes.
And the results of that refinement need to be reflected in the "testament" 
at the end of the process.

---

From: Geoff Huston <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 07 Nov 2003 11:14:41 +1100

>made public at the time it's written, not 6 months later.

fair enough - I can (and do) agree with this.

>at the end of the process.

precisely!

   Geoff

---

From: Michael StJohns <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 06 Nov 2003 19:46:26 -0500

>fair enough - I can (and do) agree with this.

*sigh* If they're made public at the beginning, then one or more of the 
IETF will feel that they need to provide input into that set of 
requirements, then there will be a very large discussion and if even one of 
the comments was ignored or excluded (or appeared to be ignored or 
excluded), then the selection process will be appealed and we really don't 
want that.

The general input from the membership should come in through the Nomcom WG 
and the Nomcom and the Nomcom's interaction with the membership.  The 
IAB/IESG guidance should not be subject to public debate or modification 
(specifically because it is the IAB's and IESG's guidance and not the 
membership's) and I see no way short of keeping it confidential until the 
termination of the process to enforce this.

This in no way is meant to prevent the Nomcom from publishing criteria 
without attribution, but frankly I'm not sure they would want to risk the 
same interaction as above.

>>And the results of that refinement need to be reflected in the 
>>"testament" at the end of the process.
>
>
>precisely!
>
>   Geoff

Yup....

---

From: Robert Elz <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 07 Nov 2003 11:54:39 +0700

Date:        Thu, 06 Nov 2003 19:46:26 -0500
    From:        Michael StJohns <[email-masked]>
    Message-ID:  <[email-masked]>

  | requirements, then there will be a very large discussion and if even one of 
  | the comments was ignored or excluded (or appeared to be ignored or 
  | excluded), then the selection process will be appealed and we really don't 
  | want that.

To quote the draft ...

   The following rules apply to the process.

   1.  The results of this process are final and binding.  There is no
       appeal.

This is why we have the confirmation process (any "issues" are
dealt with there).

  | The general input from the membership should come in through the Nomcom WG 
  | and the Nomcom and the Nomcom's interaction with the membership.

Of course.

  | The IAB/IESG guidance

We're not discussing guidance here, but qualification requirements.

The IAB and IESG, and their members individually if they desire, just
like everyone else, are free to provide additional "guidance" to the
nomcom.

The approach that has been agreed by everyone else on this point seems
correct to me.

kre