Subject: [ietf-nomcom] Guidance on the liaison role

From: Russ Housley <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 05 Apr 2009 12:16:44 -0400

One message that cam through very clearly at plenary was that the 
community wanted clarity on the role of the liaisons the ISOC BoT, 
IAB, IESG, and possibly in the future from the IAOC.

This has been a topic of much debate in the past.  The IESG decided 
to address it for their own liaison by drafting instructions to their 
liaison before the NomCom was seated.  The IESG plans to do the same 
again this year.  The IESG shared these instructions openly.  The 
idea was simple, if everyone knows the instructions, then any attempt 
to participate in a manner that goes too far will be obvious to all 
NomCom members.

So, to get the discussion going, I'm posting the instructions that 
the IESG gave to the liaison to the current NomCom.

Russ

= = = = = = = = = =

These apply when the liaison is speaking to NomCom in his liaison role.
The person who fills the liaison role may also provide personal feedback
to NomCom but only through communication channels available to general
IETF participants (e.g. the feedback web form).  When interacting with
the NomCom through liaison channels, the liaison will represent the
views of the IESG rather than personal opinion.

We came up with 4 guidelines and 1 meta-guideline:

1. Neutrality test.  When the Liaison is speaking to NomCom in his
    liaison role it should not be possible for the NomCom to determine
    the Liaison's personal opinion about a particular candidate, based
    on statements by the Liaison.  This involves sticking to facts and
    avoiding personal opinions.

2. Follow NomCom Liaison Rules in RFC 3777, which includes:

      Liaisons are expected to represent the views of their respective
      organizations during the deliberations of the committee.  They
      should provide information as requested or when they believe it
      would be helpful to the committee.

3. Act in the best interest of the IETF.

4. The IESG doesn't want to be a self-selecting body, so the liaison
    should take care to avoid actions that might produce such a result.

Meta-guideline:

When any of the four guidelines are in conflict, the liaison will use
his best judgment to resolve the conflict.  Guideline 1 should override
guideline 3 when they are in conflict.

---

From: "Joel M. Halpern" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 05 Apr 2009 12:26:11 -0400

There are two points taht I would (and did) add.
A) The Liaison is permitted to provide factual information for nomcom 
discussions that the liaison believes will help those discussions. This 
goes beyond just answering questions, as sometimes the nomcom will not 
realize there are questions it needs to ask.
B) The liaison is encouraged to use the input tools to provide personal 
input to the nomcom.

Yours,
Joel

Russ Housley wrote:
> community wanted clarity on the role of the liaisons the ISOC BoT, IAB, 
> IESG, and possibly in the future from the IAOC.
> 
> This has been a topic of much debate in the past.  The IESG decided to 
> address it for their own liaison by drafting instructions to their 
> again this year.  The IESG shared these instructions openly.  The idea 
> was simple, if everyone knows the instructions, then any attempt to 
> participate in a manner that goes too far will be obvious to all NomCom 
> members.
> 
> So, to get the discussion going, I'm posting the instructions that the 
> IESG gave to the liaison to the current NomCom.
> 
> Russ
> 
> = = = = = = = = = =
> 
> _______________________________________________
> ietf-nomcom mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-nomcom
>

---

From: Russ Housley <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 05 Apr 2009 12:36:21 -0400

Joel:

>A) The Liaison is permitted to provide factual information for 
>nomcom discussions that the liaison believes will help those 
>discussions. This goes beyond just answering questions, as sometimes 
>the nomcom will not realize there are questions it needs to ask.

I think that is allowed and encouraged under guideline #2.

>B) The liaison is encouraged to use the input tools to provide 
>personal input to the nomcom.

I think that is covered in the introduction paragraph, but it is not 
in a numbered guideline.

It appears that the NomCom Chair and the (past) IESG are in sync here.

Russ

>>to address it for their own liaison by drafting instructions to 
>>their liaison before the NomCom was seated.  The IESG plans to do 
>>the same again this year.  The IESG shared these instructions 
>>openly.  The idea was simple, if everyone knows the instructions, 
>>then any attempt to participate in a manner that goes too far will 
>>be obvious to all NomCom members.

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 06 Apr 2009 10:01:43 +1200

Russ,

This all seems correct to me.

However, three of the liaisons also have another role. The IAB,
IESG and ISOC (Board) liaisons are all from confirming bodies.

So, I think we should add something like:

Liaisons are bound by the NomCom's rules of confidentiality.
However, when reporting back to the bodies they represent,
they are allowed to report in general terms about progress
and problems. While those bodies are acting as confirming bodies,
the liaisons are expected to report in general terms on the
fairness of the NomCom's process and on whether the NomCom
appeared to reach its decisions on the basis of complete and
accurate information.

   Brian

---

From: Ross Callon <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 5 Apr 2009 22:57:28 -0400

Just to mention something that did not happen in my experience, but in
principle could possibly happen in the future.

Suppose that there was a great argument in nomcom regarding some
particular position, and the confirming body was trying to decide on
whether to confirm the result. I interpret Brian's text as saying that
the liaison is permitted to report that there was some controversy
regarding a particular appointment. To me this falls under "...report in
general terms about progress and problems". I would interpret this as
*not* reporting in any detail regarding what was said about particular
nominees for the position, nor even report who the other nominees are
(although separately we may have converged on making public the list of
nominees who have accepted for each specific position).

I think that this is the right thing, and thus support Brian's text.
However, it is possible that in the future it might be useful to
liaisons for the precise interpretation of this text to be as clear as
is reasonably possible. 

Ross

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]
On Behalf Of Brian E Carpenter
Sent: 05 April 2009 18:02
To: Russ Housley
Cc: NomCom Discussion
Subject: Re: [ietf-nomcom] Guidance on the liaison role

Russ,

   Brian

> community wanted clarity on the role of the liaisons the ISOC BoT,
IAB,

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 06 Apr 2009 16:28:21 +1200

Thanks Ross. On balance I'd slightly amend my own text

"on the basis of complete and accurate information."
becomes
"after discussing pros and cons on the basis all available information."

(because asserting that the information is truly complete
and accurate would be a stretch; the issue is to be sure that
NomCom didn't take hasty decisions.)

  Brian

---

From: Russ Housley <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 06 Apr 2009 10:11:00 -0400

Brian:

I agree that something like this should be included regarding 

>appeared to reach its decisions on the basis of complete and

s/allowed/expected/

I'm not sure what you mean by "problems."  I would expect the 
confirming bodies to get information about expected timeline, 
otherwise they do not know when they will be expected to perform 
their part of the process.

Maybe this is what you mean by "fairness."  I would want the liaison 
to report on whether the NomCom performed due diligence.  In this 
capacity the liaison is providing a high-level report card on the 
NomCom to the confirming body.

Russ

---

From: Eric Rosen <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 07 Apr 2009 11:12:58 -0400

> if everyone knows the instructions, then any attempt 

And  what recourse  do they  have?  Can  they reject  a liaison  who doesn't
follow the rules?

> the liaison is providing a high-level report card on the 

Then the  liaison from the confirming  body has effective veto  power (or at
least the threat  thereof) over the nomcom's results.   This doesn't seem to
provide much motivation for the liaison to follow the rules.

In the event of controversy about a particular nominee, the liaison's report
to the confirming body about the  fairness of the process might just reflect
the liaison's position on the controversy.

---

From: "Joel M. Halpern" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 07 Apr 2009 11:25:05 -0400

Actually,l the chair has a number of recourses if liaisons misbehave.
First and foremost is conversation.  Most mis-behavior is inadvertent, 
and can be dealt with by talking to folks.
If the liaison continues to behave inappropriately, then the chair can 
contact the liaising body.  The liaison can be replaced.
If necessary, the chair can exclude the liaison from the email and phone 
discussions until the problem is resolved.

Heck, if the chair doesn't unilaterally do what is needed, members can 
talk to the chair, etc...

No, the above is not perfect.  No solution is perfect.  If the committee 
and chair can not stand up for themselves, and if the advisor does not 
see and act on the problem, and if the ISoC liaison (who is also tasked 
to watch for procedural violations) does not act, then yes, the liaisons 
will have too much influence.  That's a lot of failures all at once.
If that much is wrong, new rules will not help.

None of this requires that we write down specific new rules or remedies.

Yours,
Joel

---

From: Andrew Lange <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 2009 09:14:19 -0700

I would also like to add one caution, and a comment.

The caution: We're all engineers and we are prone to over-prescribing  
behaviors, as exact clarity is required in the computer systems we  
build.  At the end, this is a human process, and much is in the hands  
of the individual liaisons, nomcom chair, and nomcom members.  This is  
the way it should be, we cannot precisely dictate everything that  
comes up.  Attempts to do so can result in rules clashes when an  
unforeseen consequence comes up.  Ultimately, operating process in the  
nomcom is governed by the chair, with the former chair and, to some  
degree, ISOC liaison as a check.

The comment: The individual NomCom may want something slightly  
different from their liaisons.  This is up to the Chair and voting  
members, and allows adaption.  The "rules" below are more "guidelines"  
or a "default rule set."   Perhaps this is covered in item #2 in  
"provide information as requested"

Andrew

On Apr 5, 2009, at 9:26 AM, Joel M. Halpern wrote:

> idea
> the