Subject: Alternative (A2)

From: RJ Atkinson <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 21 May 2003 12:24:05 -0400

Here is alternative (A2) which benefited from edits from several
folks, including Jim Galvin and Brian Carpenter.

--------------------------------------------------------------------
Delete the existing text in section 4, and replace with this:

     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 confirming body's sitting members agree to each
        candidate's confirmation, failing which the candidate is
        considered to be rejected.

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

        The confirming body must make its decision within a reasonable
        timeframe.  The results from the confirming body must be reported
        promptly to the nominating committee.
------------------------------------------------------------------------ 
-

---

From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 22 May 2003 15:00:28 +0200

Since Ran wants specific words, here is alternative (H), written as a
minor change to (A2).

     4. The confirming bodies decide their consent according to a rule
        of their own choosing.

        If the confirming bodies have no such specific rule, the confirming
        bodies can decide their consent by ensuring that at least
        one-half of the confirming body's sitting members agree to each
        candidate's confirmation, failing which the candidate is
        considered to be rejected.

        The confirming body must make its decision within a reasonable
        timeframe.  The results from the confirming body must be reported
        promptly to the nominating committee.
------------------------------------------------------------------------ -

---

From: James M Galvin <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 22 May 2003 10:20:39 -0400 (Eastern Daylight Time)

I would make your first paragraph "singular" and change "can" to a
"should," but otherwise I prefer this text to A2.

Jim

On Thu, 22 May 2003, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:

    CHANGE THIS:

    TO:

    If a confirming body has no such specific rule, it should
    decide its consent by ensuring that at least one-half of its
    sitting members agree to each candidate's confirmation,
    failing which the candidate is considered to be rejected.

---

From: RJ Atkinson <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 22 May 2003 11:58:57 -0400

Harald,

	Is Jim's proposed edit (see below) acceptable to you ?

Thanks,

Ran

On Thursday, May 22, 2003, at 10:20 America/Montreal, James M Galvin 
wrote:
> rule
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription
> manager: <http://lists.elistx.com/subscribe>
>

---

From: Michael StJohns <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 22 May 2003 12:27:41 -0400

Jim -

The May 8th version of this didn't address the comments and discussion about

>The confirming bodies review their respective candidates and,
>            in consultation with the nominating committee, consent to
>            some, all, or none of the candidates.

The CBs have their own roles and MUST NOT be overly influenced by the 
Nomcom.  So "in consultation with" needs to go.

Brian proposed some alternate text which I can live with:

>   If not all the candidates submitted to a confirming body are
>   rapidly confirmed, the confirming body continues to communicate
>   with the nominating committee both to understand the committee's
>   rationale for the slate and, if appropriate, to explain the reason
>   why all the candidates were not confirmed.
>
>   The confirming body may ask the nominating committee for additional
>   information about a nominee, or about the nominating committee's procedure,
>   to assist them in their deliberations. However, the confirming body
>   and the nominating committee must refrain from mutual communication
>   about availability, qualification or characteristics of other possible
>   candidates for the position.

---

From: James M Galvin <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 22 May 2003 14:40:44 -0400 (Eastern Daylight Time)

Speaking as editor, it was determined there was no consensus to change
this text.

Jim

On Thu, 22 May 2003, Michael StJohns wrote:

    Date: Thu, 22 May 2003 12:27:41 -0400
    From: Michael StJohns <[email-masked]>
    To: James M Galvin <[email-masked]>
    Cc: [email-masked]
    Subject: Current version?

    Jim -

---

From: Michael StJohns <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 22 May 2003 14:43:55 -0400

I love the passive voice - it hides a host of ills...

Who determined?  As near as I remember, Brian and I had the discussion, 
came to a consensus, and there were no opposing opinions.

Mike

---

From: RJ Atkinson <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 22 May 2003 16:13:13 -0400

On Thursday, May 22, 2003, at 14:43 America/Montreal, Michael StJohns 
wrote:
> Who determined?  As near as I remember, Brian and I had the 
> discussion, came to a consensus, and there were no opposing opinions.
>
> Mike

And the person who made that determination please point to the specific
list postings in the archive that indicated an opposing consensus ?

Thanks,

Ran

---

From: James M Galvin <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 22 May 2003 17:18:38 -0400 (Eastern Daylight Time)

Speaking as editor, when you have a standing document it is not
necessarily about opposing opinions.  The question is whether there is
consensus (overwhelming or compelling) to change the existing document.

Jim

On Thu, 22 May 2003, RJ Atkinson wrote:

    Date: Thu, 22 May 2003 16:13:13 -0400
    From: RJ Atkinson <[email-masked]>
    To: Michael StJohns <[email-masked]>
    Cc: James M Galvin <[email-masked]>,
         [email-masked]
    Subject: Re: Current version?

    Thanks,

    Ran

---

From: RJ Atkinson <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 22 May 2003 17:47:06 -0400

On Thursday, May 22, 2003, at 17:18 America/Montreal, James M Galvin 

> consensus (overwhelming or compelling) to change the existing document.

Jim,

If the only opinions expressed on list are favourable, under RFC-2026
as amended, I don't see any way one can interpret that as anything
but rough consensus.  Now if some dissent were visible on the list
and there were a mixture of expressed views with no clear trendline,
then the situation might be different.

Neither Document Editors nor WG Chairs are empowered to ignore the
expressed views on-list when determining consensus.  And silence
does not imply either consent or dissent under normal circumstances.
Lots of times folks who agree see no point in posting notes about
their agreement -- since the opinion they agree with has already
been expressed.

Are you claiming there was any visible dissent on the mailing list ?
	If yes, which messages in the archive should I refer to ?
	If no, then I don't see how the issue could properly have been
		determined to be "no change" under RFC-2026 as amended.

Thanks,

Ran Atkinson
[email-masked]

---

From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 23 May 2003 09:11:39 +0200

the edit is acceptable to me.

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 23 May 2003 15:00:51 +0200

Mike St J certainly convinced me that the text needed to be changed.
Just to refresh the argument, "consult" suggests a level of interdependency
that isn't compatible either with the confirming body's independent
role or with the strict confidentiality of the Nomcom's discussions.
My proposed text describes fairly accurately what has actually 
happened in my experience (8 years on one of the confirming bodies,
and 3 years on the other).

Given that nobody disagreed with Mike and I on the list, once we
reached agreement, I would certainly challenge the statement that
there is no consensus for the change. 

   Brian

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

---

From: RJ Atkinson <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 23 May 2003 09:13:33 -0400

I support Brian and Mike, both in analysis of the problem and in
their proposed fix.

Regardless of how this item was lost/side-tracked last go around,
it needs to get pulled back from never-never-land and added to the
"Editor should change text" item list.

IMHO,

Ran

On Friday, May 23, 2003, at 09:00 America/Montreal, Brian E Carpenter

---

From: Michael StJohns <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 23 May 2003 11:02:08 -0400

Would the chair please wake up and comment on this thread.

At 09:13 5/23/2003, RJ Atkinson wrote:

>On Friday, May 23, 2003, at 09:00 America/Montreal, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>

---

From: Avri Doria <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 23 May 2003 22:19:56 -0500

I have been traveling and away from any computer lines for several days. 
  I managed to find access and was greeted by your lovely
wake-up call.  I will read through the thread and respond.  If an 
answer requires searching the archives, it may, be another 3 days
before I can respond as my access is very limited and then I will
be away from networks again for a few days.

Mike, I apologize for taking a vacation and being away from my email
for 3 days.

a.

---

From: Avri Doria <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 23 May 2003 23:13:33 -0500

As far as I can tell the discussion of this did fall through the
cracks.  There was this suggestion of some language and then the
public discussion stopped.

Perhaps this counts as a consensus of 2, now 3, because of silence
of the majority.
At this point, given the importance of this specification, as
opposed to just accepting that, I would like people on this list
to look at this proposed change and to voice their opinions on it.

Should silence persist, then I will have to declare
the language as consensus language.

As I said previously, I will be away from the network for
another few days.

a.

Michael StJohns wrote:
>>           in
>>consultation with the nominating committee, consent to
>>           some, all,
>>or none of the
>>candidates.
>>
> 
>

---

From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 25 May 2003 02:31:23 +0200

Since Avri asked, and speaking only for myself:

I'm not so worried about influence between bodies as Mike is, but I believe 
the process will function well under Brian's proposed text.

So count me as mildly supportive (55/45) of the change.

             Harald

--On torsdag, mai 22, 2003 12:27:41 -0400 Michael StJohns 
<[email-masked]> wrote:

>   information about a nominee, or about the nominating committee's
> procedure,   to assist them in their deliberations. However, the
> confirming body    and the nominating committee must refrain from mutual
> communication   about availability, qualification or characteristics of
> other possible   candidates for the position.
>
>

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 25 May 2003 12:01:28 -0700

Harald,

HTA> I'm not so worried about influence between bodies as Mike is, but I believe
HTA> the process will function well under Brian's proposed text.

HTA> So count me as mildly supportive (55/45) of the change.

Sometimes, a confirming body could cite an alternative candidate, by way
of trying to highlight some distinctions, concerns, or the like about a
current candidate.  In a perfect world, that style of communication
would be fine.

However it really is too easy for the CB to decide that it knows of a
better candidate and, essentially, to try to preempt the nomcom. This is
of course done with the best of intentions, but it serves to negate the
long and complicated process that a nomcom goes through.

So we have one of those rare occasions in which Harald and I agree on
something:  this is a yeah for the proposed change.

d/
--
 Dave Crocker <mailto:[email-masked]>
 Brandenburg InternetWorking <http://www.brandenburg.com>
 Sunnyvale, CA  USA <tel:+1.408.246.8253>, <fax:+1.866.358.5301>

---

From: RJ Atkinson <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 27 May 2003 09:11:51 -0400

> long and complicated process that a nomcom goes through.

	Alternately, the Nomcom might justify picking candidate X on
grounds that no other candidates existed, rather than on the basis
that X was qualified for the position on the merits.  That would be
equally inappropriate --  and equally precluded by the new wording.

	Sounds like this fix helps a number of things.

Ran