Subject: Proposed change to draft-ietf-nomcom-rfc2727bis-01.txt

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 09 Jul 2002 11:40:58 +0200

Section 3 includes this:

>    2.  The annual selection and confirmation process is expected to be
>        completed within 3 months.
> 
>        The annual selection and confirmation process is expected to be
>        completed one month prior to the friday of the week before the
>        First IETF.  It is expected to begin 4 months prior to the Friday
>        of the week before the First IETF.

I propose that this should be changed to read

   2.  The annual selection and confirmation process is expected to be
       completed within 5 months.

       The annual selection and confirmation process is expected to be
       completed one month prior to the Friday of the week before the
       First IETF.  It is expected to begin 6 months prior to the Friday
       of the week before the First IETF.

(There would be a couple of other timing adjustments elsewhere in the
document as a result.)

The rationale, as discussed at length earlier, is to give more time for
both the selection and confirmation processes, since the latter in 
particular has proved too short for calm discussion.

   Brian

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 09 Jul 2002 11:47:59 +0200

Section 4 includes this:

>    4.   The Internet Society President appoints the non-voting Chair,
>         who must meet the usual requirements for membership in the
>         nominating committee.

"Usual" is subject to interpretation. To remove any doubt, I propose 
changing it to:

   4.   The Internet Society President appoints the non-voting Chair,
        who must meet the same requirements for membership in the
        nominating committee as those listed below for volunteers.

 Brian

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 09 Jul 2002 12:01:22 +0200

In my experience, the confirming bodies don't attempt to second-guess
the NomCom when it takes a controversial decision, but they
really want to know why that decision was taken, and whether the
NomCom consulted everybody they needed to. Rather than adding yet more 
formal requirements, how about an extra "oral tradition" in the Appendix?

5. Most NomComs will have to make one or two very difficult or
   controversial decisions, and these are likely to lead to debate
   within the relevant confirming body. Although not a formal
   requirement, a NomCom is well advised to inform the confirming
   body of why and how they made the choice that they did in such cases,
   rather than waiting until the confirming body comes back with
   questions. 

 Brian

---

From: Robert Elz <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 09 Jul 2002 17:56:01 +0700

Date:        Tue, 09 Jul 2002 11:40:58 +0200
    From:        Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
    Message-ID:  <[email-masked]>

  | The rationale, as discussed at length earlier, is to give more time for
  | both the selection and confirmation processes, since the latter in 
  | particular has proved too short for calm discussion.

While not opposing the change, I would point out that nothing you are
suggesting will necessarily help the latter problem at all.

As long as there is just a "finish by", there's no real incentive for
the nomcom to get anything actually finished until the time it perceives
as the last minute deadline for conformation to happen (which is probably
something of the order of 2-3 weeks before the actual deadline).

Since any movement back of that time just pushes it closer and closer
to the Christmas break (in most of the countries involved in the IETF anyway)
it isn't at all clear that this will in any way result in the nomcom
being finished its part any sooner than it now is.

kre

ps: unrelated comment while I am here (editorial really).   Why does this
doc have a reference to rfc2282 ??   It isn't actually cited anywhere (which
is a good thing), but it is there anyway.   It is also referenced as being
BCP 10, which it isn't (any more).   Anyone who can find 2727 can locate
2282 if they really care.

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 09 Jul 2002 13:25:08 +0200

> something of the order of 2-3 weeks before the actual deadline).

True enough. I'd be in favour of mandating that the slates are handed
over for confirmation 4 weeks before the deadline, but in the past we
haven't laid out the detailed schedule in the document.

> being finished its part any sooner than it now is.

That's why I suggested an increase of 2 months in the total time, rather than
just one month.

   Brian

---

From: James M Galvin <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 09 Jul 2002 13:17:35 -0400 (Eastern Daylight Time)

On Tue, 9 Jul 2002, Brian E Carpenter wrote:

What the design team has proposed in this document, instead of extending
the NOMCOM operational process, is to ensure the NOMCOM is fully
operational prior to the Third IETF.  Previously, part of the NOMCOM
time was often used to constitute or organize the NOMCOM itself.

Section 4 Item 1 requires the NOMCOM itself to be fully constituted and
operational one month prior to the Third IETF.  Section 4 includes
several changes to ensure this occurs.

What this does, effectively, is give approximately 2 months for the
creation of the NOMCOM itself, approximately 3 months for the operation
of the NOMCOM, and for the NOMCOM to be completed 1 month prior to the
First IETF.  Everything is approximate because the precise scheduling of
IETF meetings varies a bit from year to year.

Also note that Section 3 Item 7 re-defines the advise-and-consent model
to explicitly require the NOMCOM to interact with the confirming bodies
during the confirmation process.

Jim

---

From: James M Galvin <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 09 Jul 2002 13:33:56 -0400 (Eastern Daylight Time)

Given that

1. Section 3 Item 1 requires the NOMCOM to be presented with the desired
   qualifications along with the list of open positions;

2. Section 3 Item 7 requires the NOMCOM to interact with the
   confirming bodies during the confirmation process specifically to
   explain their rationale for their choice;

3. Section 5 Item 13 requires the NOMCOM to submit a testament as to
   what qualifications a candidate meets and, if the candidate does not
   meet the desired qualifications, must include a brief explanation of
   the difference;

Do you still think we need to add your comment to the Oral Tradition?

Jim

    really want to know why that decision was taken, ... and whether the

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2002 09:01:33 +0200

Jim,

If it really does what you say, OK, but in that case the document is confusing.
At a minimum I would suggest adding a separate section that gives the
complete timeline in one place. At the moment one has to reconstruct the timeline
and as my comment shows, that isn't obvious.

Also,

> during the confirmation process.

Yes, I was glad to see that. But I think it needs to be stated that this
process is allowed at least 4 weeks (as opposed to the 2 weeks it has typically
had in recent years).

   Brian

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2002 09:05:54 +0200

> Do you still think we need to add your comment to the Oral Tradition?

Yes. Really. "We chose A instead of B because..." and "We decided not
to reappoint C because..." are not covered by the formal requirements,
but really do come up as contentious points during confirmation every
couple of years.

   Brian

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2002 15:33:51 +0900

At 12:01 PM 7/9/2002 +0200, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>...

I suspect that Brian's assessment of confirming body perspective is not 
correct.  My sense, from two sittings on nomcom, receiving confirming body 
reactions, is that the confirming body really does believe it is approving 
the choice rather than the process that created the choice.

That said, I think Brian's suggestion is extremely constructive and 
heartily endorse it.  A bit of proactive frankness might well go a long 
way.  In particular, a summary report that a) indicates the nature and 
extent of the total interviewing and discussion process, and b) special 
mention of decisions that were difficult and are likely to be controversial 
to the confirming body, might be quite helpful.

The downside is the time it takes to produce such a report.

Brian's suggestion is especially appealing for the underlying tone that it 
encourages, which goes beyond the formal requirements that Jim cites.  In 
satisfying the formal requirements today, the nomcom interaction with 
confirming bodies is stilted, slow and highly calculated.  Both sides are 
so careful about what they say to the other, there is no real frankness to 
the exchange.  I take Brian's suggestion is offering a significant step 
towards changing that tone.

d/

----------
Dave Crocker  <mailto:[email-masked]>
Brandenburg InternetWorking  <http://www.brandenburg.com>
tel +1.408.246.8253;  fax +1.408.850.1850

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2002 15:43:32 +0900

>        completed within 5 months.

Let's take a step back, folks:  Why 5 months?  Why not 8 or 3?

5 months means that we have a yearly process that takes nearly half a 
year!  That just does not make sense.

         It ignores the reality that a nomcom's members
         get exhausted.

I know that this past year's committee worked very hard and nearly ran out 
of energy.  I do not for one moment believe that adding more time would 
have made things better.

Sometimes, throwing money at a problem fixes it.  Same for throwing time at it.

Sometimes we need to figure out what real problems there are and fix them 
more directly.

>particular has proved too short for calm discussion.

For all of the real and obvious concern over having the confirming bodies 
feel rushed, I have yet to understand what would take place that would be 
different and better.

Can someone please describe the changes to the confirming process that 
would be enabled?

With respect to Jim's description of the 3 phases for nomcom (formation, 
selection, confirmation) I suggest instead that folks think of incremental 
milestones for nomcom to use with the confirming bodies -- that is, 
external deliverables -- so that a) nomcom has some deliverables that will 
focus it, and b) the confirming bodies are given bits of foundation to 
evaluate prior to having a final slate dumped on them.

This treats the confirming bodies as collaborating members of the process, 
which I suspect is the real change that needs to happen, as long as the 
nature of the collaboration does not alter the role of confirming bodies as 
confirming process.

d/

----------

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2002 15:44:40 +0900

>"Usual" is subject to interpretation. To remove any doubt, I propose

good text change. much clearer.

d/

----------

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 12 Jul 2002 11:08:19 +0200

Dave,

First of all it seems that the draft is intended to allow more time
than before, but I was too dumb to spot it. So my proposed change probably
isn't needed, but some text clarification is.

> Let's take a step back, folks:  Why 5 months?  Why not 8 or 3?

Specifically, because I think we need about 8 weeks more in the process,
which I think is the intention of the draft anyawy.

> year!  That just does not make sense.

Why not?
>          It ignores the reality that a nomcom's members

Surely having a bit more time to do the same amount of work should reduce 
the exhaustion level?
> of energy.  I do not for one moment believe that adding more time would

It isn't intended to add work.
> Sometimes we need to figure out what real problems there are and fix them

And the real problem I spoke of in Minneapolis was the difficulty encountered
by the conforming bodies in understanding and handling controversial choices
made by NomCom.

> feel rushed, I have yet to understand what would take place that would be

Having sat on the confirming side of the fence for 8 straight years, I can tell
you that feeling rushed when called on to approve a controversial decision
is not a good place to be. Allowing 4 weeks or so for any necessary dialogue
between the approving bodies and NomCom seems essential to me. That allows
for a real discussion (if needed).
> Can someone please describe the changes to the confirming process that

There is no formal change. There is just time to do it with some thought.

> nature of the collaboration does not alter the role of confirming bodies as

Yes, that wouldn't be bad, but perhaps as an oral tradition item until we
have some running code.

  Brian

---

From: Fred Baker <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 12 Jul 2002 05:39:23 -0400

>    qualifications along with the list of open positions;

A general comment - this can be taken to silly extremes. Getting a set of 
qualifications from the body in question is good, but it is hardly the 
whole story. I think it needs to be clear that the nomcom is expected to 
use its own judgement in addition to getting a general set of 
qualifications from the IESG or IAB.

Let me take a very hypothetical example and a very concrete one. Suppose 
that there is an area that needs an area director, and the area is in 
trouble in one way or another. The requirements that the IESG are likely to 
impose include things like:

  - is able to select good WG chairs
  - is able to manage an activity to a charter and set of milestones
  - has some experience in the IETF
  - has some expertise in the relevant area of standardization
  - plays well with others

and so on. The IESG is unlikely, however, to add

  - has to be able to identify and solve <whatever the problem is>

None-the-less, that last may be the most important qualification for *this* 
year's candidate. In this case, the nomcom will itself generate that 
requirement in its own discussion, should not expect to get that 
requirement handed to them, and should not be beaten up for doing so.

Similarly, in looking at the IETF Chair (which the nomcom appoints) or the 
IAB Chair (which the nomcom does not appoint, but the question of who will 
likely be chosen to do the job does come up in discussion), we are talking 
about the CEO or CTO of the organization in some sense. What are the 
qualifications of a CxO? I suspect that they can be difficult to enumerate 
precisely, but come down to the factors one considers in answering the 
questions

       "does s/he have the vision of where we ought to be going?"
       "does s/he have a clue to how to get us there?"
       "Can s/he select good supporting personnel?"
       "Can s/he fix or fire non-performing personnel?"
       "If s/he were to lead, would I follow?"

Again, the nomcom will itself generate and evaluate those issues in its own 
discussion, should not expect to get a tidy list handed to them, and should 
not be beaten up for exercising its wisdom.

In short, the job of the nomcom sounds simple enough - "identify slots to 
be filled and find appropriate people to fill them." But it is complicated 
by a number of factors, especially including the fact that it is not really 
collecting a number of individuals; it is selecting members of a team who 
will have to work together, and which taken as a whole needs to have 
certain attributes represented. You can't write that program in C, nor can 
you specify it in any language. It requires a fair bit of understanding and 
judgement. As with every judgement call, there will invariably be minority 
reports and dissenting opinions. We have to make sure this is well 
understood and taken into account.

---

From: James M Galvin <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 12 Jul 2002 09:37:29 -0400 (EDT)

On Fri, 12 Jul 2002, Fred Baker wrote:

For completeness, I would like to point out that Section 5 Item 13 says:

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

        For each candidate, the testament 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 testament may include either or both a brief resume of the
        candidate or a brief summary of the deliberations of the
        nominating committee.

Jim

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 13 Jul 2002 12:48:59 +0900

>which I think is the intention of the draft anyawy.

Yes, it clearly is the intention.  What is NOT clear is how this extra time 
is actually to be used and why it is necessary.  Also...

> > year!  That just does not make sense.

What the heck, let's start the nomcom process 18 months before we select 
people.  That way we will be sure to have enough time.

And I hope that taking this ad absurdem highlights that we need concrete 
reasons for making these choices and that the reasons need to be 
balanced.  Besides that, spending 1/2 of every year doing selections keeps 
the tone of the IETF that much less stable.  It also makes affects that 
quality of the information acquired, since it permits that much less 
history for the people being evaluated.

Right now, it appears that the philosophy is to throw "time" at all nomcom 
concerns.  It therefore fails to consider what the actual problems are, and 
it fails to respect the time of the nomcom participants.

>Surely having a bit more time to do the same amount of work should reduce

That is exactly wrong.

Nomcom is an extra activity.  The longer it goes, the longer the 
participants have to carry an extra activity.  The longer they have to 
carry the support of their management.  The longer the process of nomcom 
has to keep nomcom "project energy" strong.  The longer they are attending 
to nomcom and not IETF technical work or IETF management.

These are not abstract concerns.  They apply to any project and they were a 
very noticeable factor in the recent nomcom.

>by the conforming bodies in understanding and handling controversial choices

I hope it's clear that this concern makes sense to me, too, and that it is 
a very good idea to attend to it.  However I believe that "time" is not the 
answer, but trying to improve the nature of the interactions -- and 
improving the sense of the role of the confirming body.

>is not a good place to be.

And just to be redundant, I'll stress that I agree that that is a bad state 
of affairs.  However it is not clear that giving the confirming bodies more 
time actually fixes the core problem, which I believe is to ensure that a 
confirming body has a solid basis for understanding how nomcom selections 
are made.

If that is not the core problem, or if there are more core problems, don't 
you think we should come to some understanding, before making assumptions 
of how to solve them?

For example, we could try to provide some information sooner.  And we could 
try to provide better information, as you have suggested.

(By the way, my sense of the activity in this nomcom working group is that 
it is dominated by IETF management and confirming body folks, and has very 
little participation by people who have been voting members of nomcom.)

>There is no formal change. There is just time to do it with some thought.

And I repeat that that is not likely to improve things.  The 2 nomcoms I 
have been on both had push-back from one or both confirming bodies.  It was 
fine that the confirming bodies were concerned.

However the actual process was, essentially, that either a) the confirming 
body said the equivalent of "are you sure" and the nomcom said "yes", or b) 
the confirming body said "you need to talk to these people" and the nomcom 
did, with no change in the outcome.

Alternative a) is a waste of time.  Alternative b) has 2 problems.  One is 
that the confirming body did not adequately understand what interviewing 
had already taken place -- and frankly did not try to find out, though they 
thought they did.  (I think that your suggestion for proactive reporting of 
process details could substantially alter that.)  The other is that it 
basically represents an attempt by the confirming body to direct the 
details of the nomcom process.  It is my understanding that that is not a 
confirming body's job, and also there is no way a confirming body can do 
that at the end of the process, no matter how much time is allocated.

>Yes, that wouldn't be bad, but perhaps as an oral tradition item until we

sounds good.  so good that it should be applied to the desire to make 
calendar changes without having any real idea how they will be used...

\d/

----------

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 15 Jul 2002 11:15:12 +0200

Hmm. I can only respond to this by repeating msyelf, so I won't.

   Brian

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

-- 
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Brian E Carpenter 
Distinguished Engineer, Internet Standards & Technology, IBM 
On assignment at the IBM Zurich Laboratory, Switzerland

---

From: Theodore Ts'o <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 15 Jul 2002 15:42:11 -0400

> to nomcom and not IETF technical work or IETF management.

The flip side of this argument is that smoothing the workload so that
it is spread out over a period of months, instead of being
concentrated in three months of hellish, concentrated effort, can
sometime be better.

Also, to the extent that we are simply giving the confirming body more
time to consider the results of nomcom, it isn't actually stretching
the amount of time that nomcom needs to spend (or if so, only by a
small amount).

But I believe that we both need to give more time to the confirming
bodies, and more time to nomcom.  I believe that this year's nomcom
could have done a better job if he had started earlier, and weren't
quite so rushed.  I know that Dave also served on this year's nomcom,
and has a differeing point of view, but as the nomcom chair, there
were certainly times when I felt the deadlines as definitely something
which pinched.

Part of this was certainly because we started a little bit later due
to some uncertainties about which nomcom was responsibility for
filling Abha's slot on the IESG.  But in general, I believe giving a
little extra time to the nomcom would definitely help out the process.

						- Ted