Subject: Question 1 about deadlock issue

From: RJ Atkinson <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 13 May 2003 14:12:25 -0400

Does anyone here believe that the current confirmation text should be 
retained
as-is ?

Please speak up on-list if you believe in retaining the current 
confirmation
process text as-is.  I'd be interested to understand the rationale for
retaining it if anyone wants to retain it.

Silence will be interpreted as agreement that the current text at issue
either (1) should be edited in some manner xor (2) deleted entirely.

My goal here is to try to validate that there is broad belief that the
current text should not remain as-is in the final RFC, ignoring for
the moment the question of what change the WG prefers to undertake.

Thanks,

Ran
[email-masked]

---

From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 13 May 2003 18:45:11 -0700

Ran and all,

  No I don't..

RJ Atkinson wrote:

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

Regards,
--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 129k members/stakeholders strong!)
================================================================
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [email-masked]
Contact Number: 214-244-4827 or 214-244-3801

---

From: Avri Doria <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 14 May 2003 09:41:35 +0900

Speaking as chair.

While this is an interesting point to know,  and I would like to
see people respond to it, I am uncomfortable with the notion of
change for change sake and for deciding to change something
before we know what we are changing it to.

The way this WG has been treating change to the Nomcom process is
that there has to be positive rough consensus for a particular change
before we remove old text.  I do not think we should deviate from
that practice on this question.

At the moment it looks like we are headed toward consensus on a
combination of proposals but it is a too early to call it.

What I think I see developing is a 2 part solution where:

1st - the confirmation procedure defers to the CB if they have a 
documented terminating procedure in place.
2nd - includes selection A as the default process for the CB without
a process in place.

But, I would like to hear more voices on the question in the next couple
of days.

a.

RJ Atkinson wrote:
> Please speak up on-list if you believe in retaining the current confirmation

---

From: Mark Allman <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 13 May 2003 23:08:10 -0400

> 2nd - includes selection A as the default process for the CB without

This seems reasonable to me.

allman

--
Mark Allman -- BBN/NASA GRC -- http://roland.grc.nasa.gov/~mallman/

---

From: James M Galvin <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 14 May 2003 09:00:13 -0400 (Eastern Daylight Time)

On Wed, 14 May 2003, Avri Doria wrote:

This sounds good to me.

I object to the default being that a candidate is rejected if the
confirming body deadlocks or otherwise is unable or fails to take
action.  The NOMCOM is the voice of the community and preference should
be given to their actions.  The confirming body is supposed to check the
work of the NOMCOM and if they are unable to do that then there is a
serious problem, which itself is fixed by the NOMCOM.  Clearly the
NOMCOM is the primary authority.

I prefer that we be silent on the default action but Proposal B where
the default action is confirmation would also be acceptable.

Jim

---

From: RJ Atkinson <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 14 May 2003 10:29:23 -0400

> before we know what we are changing it to.

Change for the sake of change has NEVER been on the list on this
thread.  Change to remove a known operational problem (deadlock
state that has actually occurred) is what is being discussed.

> that practice on this question.

That is not a requirement from RFC-2026 as amended.  So the Chair
has no leg to stand on in trying to force the process outlined.

> combination of proposals but it is a too early to call it.

We might or might not be heading to consensus.  Chair stifling
legitimate list discussion (as the note being replied do has
already done) is not terribly helpful.

> What I think I see developing is a 2 part solution where:

With the Chair's hat on, the Chair ought not be telling the
WG what the WG is permitted to think.  Please let the discussion
flow for several days or even a week.  The WG might or might
not converge, but heavy-handed chair interference isn't helpful
at this early stage.

IMHO,

Ran Atkinson
[email-masked]

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 15 May 2003 14:36:03 +0200

James M Galvin wrote:
...
> serious problem, which itself is fixed by the NOMCOM.  

Not if the deadlocked CB is the ISOC Board, and not soon enough if the
deadlocked CB is the IAB.

> ...Clearly the

Is that clear? In a checks-and-balances system, there is not always
a primary authority, although there may be a final appeals court.

> the default action is confirmation would also be acceptable.

Ran's original argument on this, which persuaded me to prefer A, was

>> if a candidate is so controversial that at least 50%
>> of the confirming body is not actively supportive of a given candidate
>> then that candidate is clearly not the best choice for the Internet
>> community. 

which says that the CB trumps the Nomcom. We had indeed better
be clear about that, one way or the other. Since in our present
constitution, the CBs are also the process appeals bodies, we have to
be even more clear.

   Brian

---

From: James M Galvin <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 15 May 2003 09:37:39 -0400 (Eastern Daylight Time)

On Thu, 15 May 2003, Brian E Carpenter wrote:

While I agree with Ran completely, my concern is I want the CB to take
responsibility for its actions.  Specifically, if the CB can not agree
to confirm a candidate I want the process to force them to actionably
reject the candidate.

The problem with the default being reject is it sets aside 2 months of
hard work of the NOMCOM for 2 weeks of the CB being unable to agree.

I'm okay with the CB rejecting a candidate I just want them to actually
do it.  I am not okay with the CB having the option to step aside and
leave the NOMCOM wondering what happened and what to do next.

The communication path between the NOMCOM and CB is very narrow.  I want
to make sure that if it needs to exist it will exist.  Letting the CB
take no action leaves the NOMCOM disconnected from the CB.  Forcing the
CB to actually reject a candidate if they can not agree to confirm the
candidate ensures that both parties have a path to communicate.  Whether
or not they will is an entirely separate matter, but the process should
not leave a hole like that, in my opinion.

I still believe setting a default is more than we need to do, because
even with it the process can deadlock so the improvement is marginal at
best, but if we must have a default it should favor the NOMCOM and thus
should be to confirm.

Jim

---

From: RJ Atkinson <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 15 May 2003 09:38:19 -0400

On Thursday, May 15, 2003, at 08:36 America/Montreal, Brian E Carpenter 
> deadlocked CB is the IAB.

Further, having been on IAB for 4 years of confirmations, I can say
that the IAB is *unable* to perform any plausible process-check on
any Nomcom.  The Nomcom confidentiality rules preclude the
IAB from having sufficient visibility into how the process was
performed for the IAB to perform a meaningful process-check on
the Nomcom.

So the only check the IAB is really capable of performing is whether
the nominated person is a reasonable fit for the position specified.
(NB: "reasonable" is deliberately chosen above rather than "ideal"
or even "preferred" -- in order to give Nomcom appropriate operating
room).

> constitution, the CBs are also the process appeals bodies, we have to

I'm with Brian on this.  We can't be ambiguous.

If one doesn't like the balance of (A) or (C) or (E) then the 
implication
is that one prefers the balance of (B) or (D) or (F).  We'll have to
see if a consensus emerges either way on that balance question.

Ran

---

From: RJ Atkinson <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 15 May 2003 09:54:08 -0400

On Thursday, May 15, 2003, at 09:37 America/Montreal, James M Galvin 
> hard work of the NOMCOM for 2 weeks of the CB being unable to agree.

It is never the case that the CB would not be taking responsibility.

In practice, most nominees fly through with unanimous support from the 
CB.
It is actually quite rare for a nominee to have any controversy.
Even then, it is usual that the controversial nominee can easily obtain
a majority of the CB members.

So if the CB can't garner at least half of the CB members to actively
support some nominee, this is (1) very very unusual, (2) a very bad
indication of the candidate, and (3) a strong indication that the
Nomcom process might have gone awry somehow.

Hence my preference for the (A)/(C)/(E) approach over the (B)/(D)/(F)
approach.

Reasonable people might well prefer B/D/F over A/C/E.

> not leave a hole like that, in my opinion.

In practice, the communication path is moderate in size -- "very narrow"
is not something I've ever witnessed.

Under the A/C/E approach, the CB must still take action -- hold a poll
of the CB members.  So "inaction" is NOT at issue in any of these cases.

The only difference here is whether the standard for approval is
(at least 50% support) [as in B/D/F] or the standard for approval is
(less than 50% reject) [as in A/C/E].

You seem to be reading "inaction is permitted" into A/C/E, when in fact
that is neither stated nor intended.  If you want to propose a sentence
to clarify that the CB must hold a poll on each candidate to clarify
that, please offer some clarifying text.

Cheers,

Ran
[email-masked]

---

From: James M Galvin <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 15 May 2003 11:08:33 -0400 (Eastern Daylight Time)

On Thu, 15 May 2003, RJ Atkinson wrote:

    Under the A/C/E approach, the CB must still take action -- hold a
    poll of the CB members.  So "inaction" is NOT at issue in any of
    these cases.

My concern is the text does not obligate them to report the results of
their poll, i.e., the phrase "considered to be rejected" is not strong
enough.

Fair enough.  I agree with your distinction.  Here's my suggestion.

Your original text:

    For a given nominee to be confirmed, at least one-half of the
    sitting members of the confirming bodies must agree to confirm that
    nominee.  Nominees that are not confirmed under this rule are
    considered to be rejected.

For completeness, here is the actual text from Page 10 of the current
draft:

       4.  The confirming bodies decide their consent according to a
           mechanism of their own choosing, which must ensure that at
           least one-half of the sitting members agree with the
           decision.

           At least one-half of the sitting members of the confirming
           bodies must agree to either confirm or reject each individual
           nominee.  The agreement must be decided within a reasonable
           timeframe. The agreement may be decided by conducting a
           formal vote, by asserting consensus based on informal
           exchanges (email), or by whatever mechanism is used to
           conduct the normal business of the confirming body.

And here is what I propose:

       4.  The confirming bodies decide their consent according to a
           mechanism of their own choosing, which must ensure that at
           least one-half of the sitting members agree with the
	   confirmation.

           At least one-half of the sitting members of the confirming
           bodies must agree to confirm each individual candidate.  The
           agreement must be decided within a reasonable timeframe.
           Candidates that are not confirmed under this rule must be
           rejected and reported as such to the nominating committee.

	   The agreement may be decided by conducting a formal vote, by
           asserting consensus based on informal exchanges (email), or
           by whatever mechanism is used to conduct the normal business
           of the confirming body.

Jim

---

From: RJ Atkinson <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 15 May 2003 11:25:01 -0400

On Thursday, May 15, 2003, at 11:08 America/Montreal, James M Galvin 
>            by whatever mechanism is used to conduct the normal business

I'm happy to accept this as a friendly amendment to (A).
Are other folks who liked (A) comfortable with the above revision ?

>            rejected and reported as such to the nominating committee.

to instead read:

			Candidates that are not confirmed under this rule must
			be rejected.  The resulting confirmation or rejection
			of each candidate must be reported to the IETF Nominating
			Committee.

Is that amendment OK with folks ?

Thanks very much,

Ran
[email-masked]

---

From: James M Galvin <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 15 May 2003 11:28:55 -0400 (Eastern Daylight Time)

to instead read:

    			Candidates that are not confirmed under this
    			rule must be rejected.  The resulting
    			confirmation or rejection of each candidate must
    			be reported to the IETF Nominating Committee.

Okay with me.

Jim

---

From: Randy Bush <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 15 May 2003 19:01:28 +0200

> the nominated person is a reasonable fit for the position specified.

sounds good to me

randy

---

From: Scott Bradner <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 15 May 2003 14:31:43 -0400 (EDT)

> Are other folks who liked (A) comfortable with the above revision ?

yes

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 16 May 2003 13:38:38 +0200

>     Is that amendment OK with folks ?

Yes to both

   Brian

---

From: RJ Atkinson <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 16 May 2003 15:16:21 -0400

This note serves merely to publish the revised Option (A) in toto
for the list to read if folks wish.  For clarity, I'll call this
Option (A1) going forward.

Ran
[email-masked]

------------------------------------------------------------------------ 
-------
Option A1:

	Delete existing Section 4 text regarding how Confirming Bodies
perform their confirming and replace with this text:

            Candidates that are not confirmed under this rule must
            be rejected.  The resulting confirmation or rejection
            of each candidate must be reported to the IETF Nominating
            Committee.
------------------------------------------------------------------------ 
--------

---

From: RJ Atkinson <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 16 May 2003 15:29:20 -0400

Someone just pointed out privately that the text below is ambiguous
in a couple of places.  I'll try to work with Jim and others to
come up with agreeable text to clarify this, which will probably
become option (A2).

Sorry,

Ran

---

From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 16 May 2003 20:56:52 +0200

> leave the NOMCOM wondering what happened and what to do next.

would you be happy if the "defaulting" rule required the CB to hold an 
explicit vote before the end of the timeout?

I read option A's "otherwise it is rejected" as describing the case in 
which there was no majority, not as describing a case where no vote was 
taken.

                Harald

---

From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 16 May 2003 21:13:11 +0200

Short version of this message, from Ran's summary:

- StJohns' proposal to delete current text, add (A) but with his
	editorial change to (A) that it applies if and only if the
        confirming
	body has not created a specific confirmation process for itself
	to use with nominees from IETF Nomcom.

I started editing this message below before reading Ran's latest summary, 
so it looks a bit out-of-context.
There's some specific suggestion for text in here, so I'll send the 
extended version. Take it as a friendly amendment to StJohns' - a proposal 
for the editorial change.

                 Harald

> Are other folks who liked (A) comfortable with the above revision ?

As an alternate text to (A), I am happy with this.

As a final text, I am not; since I am happy with text that defaults the CB 
decision rule but not with text that dictates the CB decision rule, I 
believe the first sentence should read:

    4. The confirming bodies decide their consent according to a mechanism
       of their own choosing, which produces an explicit decision within
       the timeframe required by the nomcom process.
       If the confirming bodies have no such specific rule, the followin
       rule is expected to be followed:

Note: When it comes up in the IAB, as I'm sure it will, I intend to argue 
in that forum that the IAB should have a rule that says that a majority of 
the qualified IAB members must confirm a candidate, but that the IESG chair 
and any IAB member who is proposed for the IESG is disqualified, and that 
any IAB member who sees a serious conflict of interest may choose to 
disqualify him/herself.

I think this level of detail and interaction with the internal processes of 
the IAB is inappropriate for nomcom - but the discussion has shown that it 
needs to be decided.

In an extreme case, this could mean that the IESG slate is approved by a 
single person. And I think that should be allowed to happen if it needs to.

                      Harald

---

From: James M Galvin <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 16 May 2003 20:07:15 -0400 (Eastern Daylight Time)

On Fri, 16 May 2003, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:

Yes, although I like the text from your followup even better, i.e., the
NOMCOM should not even say it is one-half, just that a decision must be
made.

Ran?

Jim

---

From: RJ Atkinson <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 17 May 2003 10:45:20 -0400

On Friday, May 16, 2003, at 20:07 America/Montreal, James M Galvin 
> Ran?

For the moment, I'm mainly trying to collect various options for
replacement text (including the "no replacement text" option).  I'm
not sure what precise new text is being proposed, maybe someone can
clarify the entire precise new text.

By the way, I think we're up to (H) as the next unused option letter
(with some of the previous options being not interesting to anyone
as near as I can tell).

Ran