Subject: Re: [ietf-nomcom] draft-dawkins-nomcom-openlist-03.txt posted

From: "Spencer Dawkins" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 3 Jun 2009 10:12:21 -0500

Russ has provided AD feedback on this draft, almost all of which I would 
consider editorial/nits in nature, but he did come up with a question that 
led to another question in my mind, and I wanted feedback from the group 
before submitting openlist-04.

In openlist-03 Section 6, Russ flagged this text (Russ's comments are 
prefaced by ">"):

   We note that (for example) the Internet Architecture Board publishes
   the nominee list for their representative to the Internet Society
   Board of Trustees, without apparent ill effects, but we are also
   willing to accept that a NomCom might consider nominees whose names
   have not been announced, for a variety of reasons, if this is the
   right thing to do, in NomCom's judgement.

> I realize that this is not the normative part of the text, but the
> last bit raises a concern.  Clarity is needed here.  RFC 3777 says:
>
>   None of the Chair, liaisons, or advisors vote on the selection of
>   candidates.  They do vote on all other issues before the
>   committee unless otherwise specified in this document.
>
> So, are the Chair, liaisons, and advisors part of the NomCom's
> judgement here.  I think that the document needs to be clear on
> this point.  So, would such a decision be part of the "selection
> of candidates" or is it part of the process that includes the
> Chair, liaisons, and advisors in the voting pool.

My take on this is that the judgement needs to be the judgement of the 
voting membership - I would be very uncomfortable with having a bunch of 
non-voting members overrule the voting membership to say that a nominee 
should be considered with no community feedback.

I could be wrong about this, of course, so I'm curious what others think.

My question (based on Russ's question) is - in the actual normative section 
(Section 7), I had this related text:

      The NomCom may consider nominees without asking for community
      feedback.

Does this need to include any reference to the judgement of either the 
voting membership or the entire membership of NomCom?

Thanks,

Spencer

---

From: Robert Elz <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 03 Jun 2009 23:35:06 +0700

Date:        Wed, 3 Jun 2009 10:12:21 -0500
    From:        "Spencer Dawkins" <[email-masked]>
    Message-ID:  <[email-masked]>

  | My take on this is that the judgement needs to be the judgement of the 
  | voting membership - I would be very uncomfortable with having a bunch of 
  | non-voting members overrule the voting membership

I don't think the latter is really possible, is it?   And we should make sure
we keep it that way - that is, the voting members of the nomcom are greater
in number (by a notable margin) than the sum of everyone else - so on any 
issue, if the voting members are of a common view, that view will always 
prevail.

The only time the liaison (etc) opinion will affect the result is when the
voting members are (close to) evenly divided - that is, effectively, when
the voting part of the nomcom is essentially undecided.   I see no harm in
that circumstance, and probably a benefit, in having the guidance from the
liaisons (assuming they're all more or less of one mind, if they're split
too, then a small majority amongst them isn't going to alter anything except
the most evenly divided voting member opinion) to make choices.

The only issue that we have wanted to keep the liaisons (etc) out of is the
actual choice of candidates - and that only to avoid suspicion that
appointed nomcom members are effectively running an old boys club.   Even
there, as long as the voting membership size is of the order of twice the
number of liaisons, etc, which I think it is, the voting members are always
in control whenever they, or even most of them, want to be - so I don't
think we need extra rules.

Leave this is just another issue for each nomcom to specify internally as
part of its own procedural issues - they can decide who gets to vote on
issues like this, if they need to (I think it's clear that everyone gets a
vote to decide the question, but if they desire, the voting members can
vote as a block to exclude the others from voting on other issues).

kre

---

From: "Spencer Dawkins" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 3 Jun 2009 11:44:53 -0500

Hi, Robert,

Thanks for catching my bad math. You understood what I meant to say - I was 
uncomfortable with a majority of the voting volunteers having one opinion, 
but that opinion being reversed when the non-voting members are polled, when 
the question is, "can we consider X as a nominee, without asking the 
community for input?"

I am, of course, holding off on submitting openlist-04 to get more feedback 
on this, so others are invited to express opinions as well.

Thanks,

Spencer

---

From: "Joel M. Halpern" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 03 Jun 2009 12:55:56 -0400

I suspect that this gets into cases that are better left unspecified, 
and let the nomcom chair figure out what works depending upon the 
specific situation.

Frankly, if it is this close, the chair probably has some work to do to 
anyway.

If one starts creating hypotheticals, I think this is a case where the 
liaisons would not get to vote.  (Note, my preference is not to write a 
rule at all.)  Reasoning for how I would conclude if I had to:
Imagine that the situation is such that a majority of the voting members 
what to consider the candidate, but not a sufficient majority to 
overrule the liaisons (otherwise there is no question, and no need for a 
policy.)
Suppose that majority would indeed make that person their first choice.
Then they, as the voting members of the nomcom, are clearly free to make 
that choice.  And the liaisons should not be able to stop them from 
making that choice.

(The reason I don't think a rule is needed is that it is the chair's job 
to ensure that the liaisons do not unduly influence the actual 
selection.  This case would clearly be an undue influence, and the chair 
would do what is necessary to avoid the problem.)

Yours,
Joel

Spencer Dawkins wrote:
> Hi, Robert,
> 
> Thanks for catching my bad math. You understood what I meant to say - I 
> was uncomfortable with a majority of the voting volunteers having one 
> opinion, but that opinion being reversed when the non-voting members are 
> polled, when the question is, "can we consider X as a nominee, without 
> asking the community for input?"
> 
> I am, of course, holding off on submitting openlist-04 to get more 
> feedback on this, so others are invited to express opinions as well.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Spencer
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> ietf-nomcom mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-nomcom
>

---

From: "Spencer Dawkins" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 3 Jun 2009 21:49:20 -0500

I'm going to take Joel's suggestion here, and remove the non-normative text 
that led to Russ's question, and to my question. Posting openlist-04 in a 
few minutes...

Thanks,

Spencer

>I suspect that this gets into cases that are better left unspecified, and 
>let the nomcom chair figure out what works depending upon the specific 
>situation.
>
> what to consider the candidate, but not a sufficient majority to overrule 
> the liaisons (otherwise there is no question, and no need for a policy.)
> that choice.  And the liaisons should not be able to stop them from making 
> that choice.
>
> to ensure that the liaisons do not unduly influence the actual selection. 
> This case would clearly be an undue influence, and the chair would do what 
> is necessary to avoid the problem.)
>
> Yours,
> Joel
>
>
> Spencer Dawkins wrote:
>> Hi, Robert,
>>

---

From: SM <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 04 Jun 2009 16:53:35 -0700

Hi Spencer,
At 08:12 03-06-2009, Spencer Dawkins wrote:
>Russ has provided AD feedback on this draft, almost all of which I 
>would consider editorial/nits in nature, but he did come up with a 
>question that led to another question in my mind, and I wanted 
>feedback from the group before submitting openlist-04.
>
>In openlist-03 Section 6, Russ flagged this text (Russ's comments 
>are prefaced by ">"):
>

This is more of a comment.  We only have to look at the discussion of 
having an open list to see that opinions on "the right thing to do" 
is not shared by everyone.  You could use:

   have not been announced.

There is no need to say "for a variety of reasons" as none of these 
reasons are discussed.  Obviously, NomCom will do it if it believes 
that it is the right thing to do.

>My take on this is that the judgement needs to be the judgement of 
>the voting membership - I would be very uncomfortable with having a 
>bunch of non-voting members overrule the voting membership to say 
>that a nominee should be considered with no community feedback.

There isn't a voting and non-voting membership according to the 
quoted paragraph from RFC 3777.  Whether the person votes depends on 
what's specified in RFC 3777.  Considering nominees is part of the 
selection of candidates.  Advisors don't get to vote on the "we note 
..." paragraph.

BTW, do we have to keep the "we note" and the "we are willing" etc. 
throughout the document?  Once this draft gets approved, it's not 
about what "the community are willing to accept".  NomCom does their 
job and the community does not have any say.  If the community 
doesn't like the way things were done, it can rewrite the "rules".

>My question (based on Russ's question) is - in the actual normative 
>section (Section 7), I had this related text:
>
>Does this need to include any reference to the judgement of either 
>the voting membership or the entire membership of NomCom?

That's part of the selection of candidates.  If there is any doubt, 
then you'll have to go and specify the "rules".

At 09:55 03-06-2009, Joel M. Halpern wrote:
>I suspect that this gets into cases that are better left 
>unspecified, and let the nomcom chair figure out what works 
>depending upon the specific situation.

Agreed.

>(The reason I don't think a rule is needed is that it is the chair's 
>job to ensure that the liaisons do not unduly influence the actual 
>selection.  This case would clearly be an undue influence, and the 
>chair would do what is necessary to avoid the problem.)

Yes.

Regards,
-sm