Subject: Re: [ietf-nomcom] past nomcom chair starting next process

From: James M Galvin <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 05 Apr 2009 10:00:10 -0400

I'm supportive of changing the "rules" to allow some of the more 
administrative tasks to be taken over by the Secretariat, in principle. 
However, I have two concerns with this proposed change.

First, I think we need to state explicitly how far the process can go 
without a NOMCOM chair.  This could be as simple as simply stating 
explicitly that the Secretariat can only do what is stated and that the 
process does not really start until the Chair is named and in place. 
More elaborate options are possible but I'm more in favor of keeping it 
simple and stating less.

Second, I can not think of any reason not to include the IAOC in this 
change.  Since one of the changes to this document was to include the 
IAOC along with the IAB and IESG, why exclude them from this step?  If 
we're really going to do that then we need to state why.

Jim

-- On March 3, 2009 4:19:33 PM -0600 Spencer Dawkins 
<[email-masked]> wrote regarding Re: [ietf-nomcom] past 
nomcom chair starting next process --

> Just to let people know - Russ thought this was a good suggested
> change, so I've submitted an 01 version of the draft (at
> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-dawkins-nomcom-dont-wait-01
> .txt) that now assigns the responsibility to the IETF Secretariat.
>
> Thanks for your feedback,
>
> Spencer
>
> > seems to me that a simpler solution is for the IETF Secretariat
> > to post that information (what seats are to be decided) whenever
> > it would be a good idea to do so - this is known information
> >
> > one special case is where the IESG decides to add or subtract
> > a area - biut the Secretariat can find that out from the IESG
> > just as well as the nomcom chair can
> >
> > Scott
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> ietf-nomcom mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-nomcom

---

From: Russ Housley <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 05 Apr 2009 12:28:08 -0400

In plenary I heard some of these same concerns.  I got the impression 
that people were supportive of the Secretariat taking actions that 
involve no judgment.

It seems to me that the call for people willing to serve on NomCom is 
a very reasonable thing for the Secretariat to do.  Under the current 
system, the volunteers contact the NomCom Chair who passes the name 
to the Secretariat to determine if they are qualified, and then the 
names are passed back to the NomCom Chair.  It seems much simpler for 
the Secretariat to make the call and at the end of the 30 days 
provide a list of the qualified volunteers to the NomCom Chair.

This approach provides several additional weeks to locate a NomCom 
chair.  Hopefully these weeks are not needed, but we have seen at 
least one case where the time is needed.

Russ

At 10:00 AM 4/5/2009, James M Galvin wrote:
>administrative tasks to be taken over by the Secretariat, in 
>principle. However, I have two concerns with this proposed change.
>
>First, I think we need to state explicitly how far the process can 
>go without a NOMCOM chair.  This could be as simple as simply 
>stating explicitly that the Secretariat can only do what is stated 
>and that the process does not really start until the Chair is named 
>and in place. More elaborate options are possible but I'm more in 
>favor of keeping it simple and stating less.
>
>Second, I can not think of any reason not to include the IAOC in 
>this change.  Since one of the changes to this document was to 
>include the IAOC along with the IAB and IESG, why exclude them from 
>this step?  If we're really going to do that then we need to state why.
>
>Jim
>
>
>
>
>

---

From: Stewart Bryant <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 05 Apr 2009 19:58:44 +0100

It would also be reasonable for the outgoing Nomcom chair to provide the 
the Secretariat with the RNG seeds and take any judgmental actions until 
the appointment of the incoming chair. In other words transfer all the 
initial duties of the nomcom chair to a combination of the outgoing 
Chair and the Secretariat with all mechanical duties being conducted by 
the Secretariat.

Stewart

Russ Housley wrote:
> system, the volunteers contact the NomCom Chair who passes the name to 
> the Secretariat to determine if they are qualified, and then the names 
> are passed back to the NomCom Chair.  It seems much simpler for the 
> Secretariat to make the call and at the end of the 30 days provide a 
> list of the qualified volunteers to the NomCom Chair.
>
>> explicitly that the Secretariat can only do what is stated and that 
>> the process does not really start until the Chair is named and in 
>> place. More elaborate options are possible but I'm more in favor of 
>> keeping it simple and stating less.
>>
>> IAOC along with the IAB and IESG, why exclude them from this step?  
>> If we're really going to do that then we need to state why.
>>
>> Jim
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>

---

From: "Spencer Dawkins" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 5 Apr 2009 15:13:22 -0500

Yeah, I think this is the tipping point. The first version of this draft 
relied on the past NomCom chair to get started, and the comments were "gee, 
we have a secretariat, why not use it?" and "and there's other stuff that 
could happen before the new chair shows up".

I pointed everything to the secretariat (first comment) and added other 
stuff (second comment). There's still work to do.

I'm wondering about putting the past NomCom chair in charge of deciding 
whether something requires judgement, but wonder what other people would 
think about that before I try to write draft text...

I am hoping NOT to have a list of what the secretariat can do, that we have 
to update every time we identify a new task that doesn't require judgement.

Thanks,

Spencer

> initial duties of the nomcom chair to a combination of the outgoing Chair 
> and the Secretariat with all mechanical duties being conducted by the 
> Secretariat.
>
> Stewart
>
>
> Russ Housley wrote:
>> It seems to me that the call for people willing to serve on NomCom is a 
>> very reasonable thing for the Secretariat to do.  Under the current 
>> Secretariat to make the call and at the end of the 30 days provide a list 
>> of the qualified volunteers to the NomCom Chair.
>>
>> This approach provides several additional weeks to locate a NomCom chair. 
>> Hopefully these weeks are not needed, but we have seen at least one case 
>> where the time is needed.
>>
>> Russ
>>

---

From: Stewart Bryant <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 05 Apr 2009 21:31:20 +0100

Spencer

Can't we simply state that it is the duty of the outgoing chair to run 
the process of appointing the nomcom membership for the next nomcom and 
any other associated activities (any part of which may be delegated), 
and that it is the duty of the incoming chair to convene and chair the 
first and subsequent meetings of the new nomcom.

Stewart

Spencer Dawkins wrote:
> Yeah, I think this is the tipping point. The first version of this 
> draft relied on the past NomCom chair to get started, and the comments 
> were "gee, we have a secretariat, why not use it?" and "and there's 
> other stuff that could happen before the new chair shows up".
>
> I pointed everything to the secretariat (first comment) and added 
> other stuff (second comment). There's still work to do.
>
> I'm wondering about putting the past NomCom chair in charge of 
> deciding whether something requires judgement, but wonder what other 
> people would think about that before I try to write draft text...
>
> I am hoping NOT to have a list of what the secretariat can do, that we 
> have to update every time we identify a new task that doesn't require 
> judgement.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Spencer
>
>> It would also be reasonable for the outgoing Nomcom chair to provide 
>> the the Secretariat with the RNG seeds and take any judgmental 
>> actions until the appointment of the incoming chair. In other words 
>> transfer all the initial duties of the nomcom chair to a combination 
>> of the outgoing Chair and the Secretariat with all mechanical duties 
>> being conducted by the Secretariat.
>>
>> Stewart
>>
>>
>> Russ Housley wrote:
>>> In plenary I heard some of these same concerns.  I got the 
>>> impression that people were supportive of the Secretariat taking 
>>> actions that involve no judgment.
>>>
>>> It seems to me that the call for people willing to serve on NomCom 
>>> is a very reasonable thing for the Secretariat to do.  Under the 
>>> current system, the volunteers contact the NomCom Chair who passes 
>>> the name to the Secretariat to determine if they are qualified, and 
>>> then the names are passed back to the NomCom Chair.  It seems much 
>>> simpler for the Secretariat to make the call and at the end of the 
>>> 30 days provide a list of the qualified volunteers to the NomCom Chair.
>>>

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 06 Apr 2009 09:45:33 +1200

> first and subsequent meetings of the new nomcom.

I would have thought that an outgoing chair would find this to be
an unreasonable burden, at a time when s/he would be considered by
most observers to have finished the main task and deserve some time
off. So I'd dial it back to triggering the Secretariat (and nagging
the ISOC President until the new chair is appointed).

Otoh, it would seem odd if we can't specify the random selection
mechanism enough that it can be done by the Secretariat.

    Brian

---

From: "Joel M. Halpern" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 05 Apr 2009 17:57:05 -0400

While it looks like the random selection is mechanistic enough to leave 
to the secretariat, in practice it is not.
The minor reason is that the rules to do not mandate the selection 
procedure.  They merely recommend the use of the BCP.
The major reason is that the BCP does not specify what the random seeds 
are.  The nomcom chair picks them.  And the chair has to check carefully 
for the timing and reliable availability of the numbers so that the 
algorithm can actually be run when specified.
I was lucky.  The seeds Lakshminath had would were still available, and 
still reliable, so I was able to just use them.  But the procedure 
certainly can not assume that various lotteries won't change their 
drawing styles, or that the US Government won't change its debt 
reporting strategies, etc.

Yours,
Joel

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 06 Apr 2009 05:19:55 -0400

--On Sunday, April 05, 2009 21:31 +0100 Stewart Bryant
<[email-masked]> wrote:

> Spencer
> 
> Can't we simply state that it is the duty of the outgoing
> chair to run the process of appointing the nomcom membership
> for the next nomcom and any other associated activities (any
> part of which may be delegated), and that it is the duty of
> the incoming chair to convene and chair the first and
> subsequent meetings of the new nomcom.

This seems like the right solution to me.

I'm sympathetic to the burden of having to do this just when one
thought one was finished that Brian identifies (especially for
the first time, when the outgoing chair would have to run a
second selection process after running one a year earlier).
However, contrary to Brian's comment, whether the outgoing chair
is "considered by most observers to have finished the main task
and deserve some time off" or not, a chair really signs up for
two years --one a chair and one as past chair but with
significant responsibilities to the Nomcom.  From the latter
perspective, the [outgoing] chair is less than halfway through
his or her term when the new selection process starts and
appears to be the right person to stick with the parts of this
task that, as Joel points out, requires a person.

That said, redefining the tasks as Russ and others have
suggested, putting as much of the administrative burden
--collecting and validating names, running the random draw,
etc.-- onto the Secretariat seems like a good idea.

   john

---

From: Thomas Narten <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 07 Apr 2009 09:36:12 -0400

> to the secretariat, in practice it is not.

I agree. 

IMO, we should not burdon the previous year's chair with anything that
requires real judgement and should be done by the chair for that
year. We would be well-advised to have a clean break from one nomcom
to the next in terms of responsibility/accountability. The last thing
anyone should want is to have an incoming chair saddled with
controversial decisions made before they were properly seated. 

Thomas