Subject: Alternative (H2)

From: RJ Atkinson <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 23 May 2003 09:19:47 -0400

Trying to combine Harald's proposal, Jim's draft amendment, and 
Christian's
draft amendment, I come up with this.   It includes some wordsmithing
edits by me, not intended to change the meaning.

Would the folks who like (A2) be comfortable dropping that in favour
of this ?  I am comfortable either with (A2) or the (H2) below.

Is Harald OK with this ?

Other comments ?

Thanks,

Ran Atkinson
[email-masked]

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

     4. The confirming body decides whether it confirms each candidate
        using a confirmation decision rule chosen by the confirming body.

        If a confirming body has no specific confirmation decision rule,
        then confirming a given candidate should require at least 
one-half
        of the Confirming Body's sitting members to agree to that
        confirmation.

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

        Regardless of which decision rule the confirming body uses, any
        candidate that is not confirmed under that rule must 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: Fri, 23 May 2003 09:34:38 -0400 (Eastern Daylight Time)

This is good for me.

Jim

On Fri, 23 May 2003, RJ Atkinson wrote:

    Date: Fri, 23 May 2003 09:19:47 -0400
    From: RJ Atkinson <[email-masked]>
    To: [email-masked]
    Subject: Alternative (H2)

    Is Harald OK with this ?

    Other comments ?

    Thanks,

    Ran Atkinson
    [email-masked]

---

From: Scott Bradner <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 23 May 2003 09:44:54 -0400 (EDT)

we are well into the area of diminishing returns on this 
can we just say OK to Ran's words and move on?

Scott

-----

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 23 May 2003 17:00:47 +0200

This is fine
   Brian

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

---

From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 25 May 2003 02:18:02 +0200

I have no problems with this version.

--On fredag, mai 23, 2003 09:19:47 -0400 RJ Atkinson 
<[email-masked]> wrote:

>         then confirming a given candidate should require at least one-half
>         The decision may be made by conducting a formal vote, by asserting
>         timeframe.   The results from the confirming body must be reported

---

From: Robert Elz <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 30 May 2003 12:53:15 +0700

Date:        Sun, 25 May 2003 02:18:02 +0200
    From:        Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
    Message-ID:  <[email-masked]>

  | I have no problems with this version.
  | 
  | --On fredag, mai 23, 2003 09:19:47 -0400 RJ Atkinson 
  | <[email-masked]> wrote:
  | 
  | > --------------------------------------------------------------------
  | > Delete the existing text in section 4, and replace with this:
  | >
  | >      4. The confirming body decides whether it confirms each candidate
  | >         using a confirmation decision rule chosen by the confirming body.
  | >
  | >         If a confirming body has no specific confirmation decision rule,
  | >         then confirming a given candidate should require at least one-half
  | >         of the Confirming Body's sitting members to agree to that
  | >         confirmation.
  | >
  | >         The decision may be made by conducting a formal vote, by asserting
  | >         consensus based on informal exchanges (e.g. email), or by any
  | >         other mechanism that is used to conduct the normal business
  | >         of the confirming body.
  | >
  | >         Regardless of which decision rule the confirming body uses, any
  | >         candidate that is not confirmed under that rule must 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.
  | > ------------------------------------------------------------------------

I haven't had time to read this list for ages, and am just catching up.
I think I have read all of this thread - and I think you're all attempting
to solve the wrong problem.

That is, Ran says that the IAB has deadlocked (the IAB's nature must have 
changed a lot since I was there...) and that that poses a problem for the
nomcom.

Fine - that should be fixed.

But the proposed solution is to start (even in this mild form) to tell the
confirming body how it should make its decision?

That's absurd.   It is only getting even slight credence because the
confirming body everyone is concentrating on is the IAB, and everyone
feels like they have the right to tell the IAB how it should function
(and perhaps they do - but that's part of the IAB charter revision/approval
process, not the nomcom process).

Christian pointed out how insane this is for the ISOC, the other confirming
body.

But take it one step further - assume that (sometime in some distant future
perhaps - however unlikely it seems) that the confirming body was to be
General Motors - are we proposing to tell them how they make a decision?
Or to make it even more clear, say the confirming body was to be the US
state department - would we be suggesting to them that they should hold a
vote (of whom?) to make a decision.

This is all simply wrong.   We ask the conforming body to make a decision.
If they say yes (as a body) or no (as a body) then that's fine, that's what
we asked for.   It matters to us not even slightly what method they used to
make that decision.   If they say nothing, no matter what the reason, we cannot,
as a solution for that attempt to force an answer from them.   Rather we need
a fallback decision should the conforming body not make one, as no matter
how much we try (using our rules) to force one out of them, they can always
just prevaricate.

So, I'd suggest that the text be more like

	4. The confirming body decides whether it confirms each candidate.
	   That decision must be made within a reasonable timeframe.
	   Failing a decision, the slate of candidates, or any candidate
	   not explicitly confirmed or rejected, will be considered to have
	   been PQRSed.

Whether PQRS is confirm or reject doesn't matter to me (it makes a difference
but isn't one I have concluded that one is better than the other).

This is all we need - if the confirming body chooses not to make a
decision, because of laziness, deadlock, or any other reason, the world
must go on, it cannot simply stall forever.

The mechanism by which a decision is made, if one is made, doesn't matter
(and how would anyone necessarily know whether 7 of 12 IAB members voted
yes, or whether 5 of the 7 who bothered to attend the meeting voted yes) ?

The only other issue is whether "reasonable timeframe" ought to be nailed
down more precisely (if it isn't already) - which I'd guess would be a good
idea.

kre

---

From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 30 May 2003 10:01:26 +0200

> confirming body how it should make its decision?

actually the previous nomcom RFC told the confirming body how to make its 
decision, and not only did it, but did it sloppily. we're trying to back 
away from that (at least I am).

once the IAB makes a decision on how it wants to decide on confirmations, 
the second paragraph of (H2) becomes inoperative, so your text and 
alternative (H2) become more or less functionally equivalent.
(The third paragraph of (H2) is a no-op already; you can't fail to conform 
to a text that says "anything's allowed".)

that's where I want to go....

                Harald

---

From: Robert Elz <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 30 May 2003 16:36:28 +0700

Date:        Fri, 30 May 2003 10:01:26 +0200
    From:        Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
    Message-ID:  <[email-masked]>

  | actually the previous nomcom RFC told the confirming body how to make its 
  | decision, and not only did it, but did it sloppily. we're trying to back 
  | away from that (at least I am).

yes, I agree with that.

  | that's where I want to go....

It sounds like we agree - I just don't think we need all those words to
get to the desired result.   That is, it isn't our business to care what
the confirming body's rules for decision making are, in any sense at all,
nor to even enquire whether they have any.   All that matters to us is
whether or not they actually have confirmed the slate of candidates, not
how they got there.

Of course, the selection of confirming bodies is up to us, and how well
they do their job is something to consider from time to time - whether
they should be replaced by someone else (I see no need to consider any
of that now however).

And, where an IETF body is involved, its charter will get reviewed from
time to time, and its rules can be considered and approved in that context.

kre

---

From: RJ Atkinson <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 30 May 2003 10:30:42 -0400

> whether or not they actually have confirmed the slate of candidates, 

We *do* care that the Confirming Body doesn't deadlock without
any decision, which is known to have happened.  And I think that
deadlock was not the result of putting an inappropriate/unwise
set of people onto that Confirming Body.  Your mileage might vary.
I was there.

That deadlock would have occurred under the rules of the previous 
Nomcom RFC
(which were the rules actually applied) or under the normal IAB rule for
decision-making  (which is correctly rigged to NOP when there is 
contention[1],
see IAB Charter RFC to see those current default rule).

So Harald's assessment is quite correct IMHO:
	- As soon as IAB creates their own rules, the contingent rule
	  no longer applies.
	- Until then, we at least eliminate the deadlock state that is
	  currently legislated.

The anxiety you seem to be concerned about -- excessive legislation
of rules -- is actually *fixed* by H2, not made worse by it.

And as Scott Bradner correctly observed a week or so back, we've done
a tremendous amount of collective wordsmithing to end up with H2.  Yet
more wordsmithing of H2 is unlikely to help in any meaningful way.

IMHO, we need to just adopt the H2 text as replacement for the current
broken text and move forward with identifying/resolving any other open
issues with this draft.

Ran

[1] On architectural matters, for example, if there is no consensus 
either
way inside the IAB on some issue, it is far better to do nothing than to
make a statement which might be seriously flawed technically.

---

From: Robert Elz <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 01 Jun 2003 01:57:11 +0700

Date:        Fri, 30 May 2003 10:30:42 -0400
    From:        RJ Atkinson <[email-masked]>
    Message-ID:  <[email-masked]>

  | We *do* care that the Confirming Body doesn't deadlock without
  | any decision,

No, we don't.  What we care about is getting a decision.  If there's
no decision, it is irrelevant whether it is because of deadlock, or
because they haven't even met once to consider the issue, or ...

You're focussing on solving a particular problem you saw, and not
looking at the broader issue.

  | That deadlock would have occurred under the rules of the previous 
  | Nomcom RFC

I agree that getting rid of the rule that is there now on how the
confirming body should act is a good idea.

  | So Harald's assessment is quite correct IMHO:
  | 	- As soon as IAB creates their own rules, the contingent rule
  | 	  no longer applies.

First, it isn't "the IAB", it is "the conforming body", and second,
we really should not care how they make a decision.

Eg: what would you do if the confirming body created a rule "when confirming
candidates from the IETF nomcom, three months must elapse for study before
a vote can be taken" ?

  | The anxiety you seem to be concerned about -- excessive legislation
  | of rules -- is actually *fixed* by H2, not made worse by it.

While in some cases that is what I worry about, in this case, that isn't
it at all.   It is that it is totally inappropriate for us to be making
any rules at all.

  | And as Scott Bradner correctly observed a week or so back, we've done
  | a tremendous amount of collective wordsmithing to end up with H2.  Yet
  | more wordsmithing of H2 is unlikely to help in any meaningful way.

I think all that has been based upon attempting to solve the wrong problem.
That is, it has all been aimed at finding a way to force an answer, one way
of the other, out of the confirming body (and particularly when that is the
IAB).   That's simply wrong.   We cannot make another organisation do
anything, or do it in a way we choose, just because we say so (for the
purposes of this discuccion, you should consider the IAB to be a totally
independent organisation to the IETF - more like the ISOC, the other
confirming body that these rules also apply to).

  | IMHO, we need to just adopt the H2 text as replacement for the current
  | broken text and move forward with identifying/resolving any other open
  | issues with this draft.

Once again, the right way to fix this, is to decide what should happen if
the confirming body says neither yes, nor no within a reasonable period.
It should be irrelevant to us why they got into that position (internal
deadlock, didn't feel like calling a meeting as all members were on
extended vacation, ...).   That completely solves the deadlock problem in
the correct way, and also provides for all kinds of other things that
might go wrong  (and after thinking about it, I think the answer has to
be "confirmed" if there's no explicit rejection, otherwise we have a
potential loop, where the confirming body never does anything, and a
default reject applies every time).

kre

---

From: James M Galvin <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 31 May 2003 15:35:14 -0400 (Eastern Daylight Time)

On Sun, 1 Jun 2003, Robert Elz wrote:

    (and after thinking about it, I think the answer has to
    be "confirmed" if there's no explicit rejection, otherwise we have a
    potential loop, where the confirming body never does anything, and a
    default reject applies every time).

Logically, I agree with you, but I don't think logic is the correct
choice here.

Looking at it the other way, if the confirming body can not agree that
the NOMCOM has done the best job it could have done, we want there to be
a deadlock because we want that issue to surface and be visible to the
community.

In other words, a deadlock in this case is considered a feature.

Jim

---

From: Robert Elz <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 01 Jun 2003 04:37:56 +0700

Date:        Sat, 31 May 2003 15:35:14 -0400 (Eastern Daylight Time)
    From:        James M Galvin <[email-masked]>
    Message-ID:  <[email-masked]>

  | Looking at it the other way, if the confirming body can not agree that
  | the NOMCOM has done the best job it could have done, we want there to be
  | a deadlock because we want that issue to surface and be visible to the
  | community.

I know what you're getting at, but I think that if we ever have any of
the candidates confirmed by default, because the confirming body was unable
(or unwilling) to say yes or no, that will be quite visible enough (if
necessary, the rules can say that this needs to be notified on the
ietf-announce list - not necessarily specifying which candidate).

But I don't think we can allow ourselves to get into a situation where
we have only a half the IESG (and depending which year, perhaps no IETF
chair).  Having only half the IAB might be harmless enough, but for the
IESG I think the IETF as a whole would almost collapse.

Do recall that the conformation process is supposed to be just a check
that the nomcom process hasn't gone wild - in general we trust the nomcom
to have produced adequate results.   If the confirming body disagrees, fine,
and there's plenty of chance for deadlock (inter-group dispute) there.

But if the confirming body is just unable to make a decision, I think the
correct default is to trust the nomcom output.

For a (perhaps far fetched) example, consider would would happen should
some year, sometime during February, when the ISOC and IAB are both in the
process of confirming the nomcom's results, the ISOC is suddenly wound up
for some reason or other - it no longer exists.   The new IAB members have
not been confirmed.   I guess we could live with that until we complete a
revision of this doc and appoint a new confirming body, and they consider
the question.   But (I believe, and even if this is not correct now, it could
be at this unknown future time) the ISOC pays for the IAB phone calls for
their meetings.   No ISOC, no phone calls.  Confirmation discussions are too
sensitive for e-mail (or so the IAB has decided) - so no IESG confirmation
gets done either.   None of this because of anything even remotely connected
to the actual slate of candidates put forward by the nomcom.

In any of these kinds of cases (including where the conforming body is
simply deadlocked because of disagreements internally about the nomcom
results) I think the correct thing is to accept the nomcom output.  And
then come back here and figure out how to fix whatever went wrong, if a
fix is needed.

kre

---

From: RJ Atkinson <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 31 May 2003 20:28:41 -0400

> because they haven't even met once to consider the issue, or ...

I'm sorry for my unclear use of language.

To try to be clear, in the English language as used in Virginia, where
I happen to live, "deadlock" has the meaning "not getting a decision".

> looking at the broader issue.

	Wrong.  I'm looking at the whole issue, including but not in any way
limited to the specific problem being discussed right now.

	My primary goal is to ensure that we get some decision,
which is one reason that I started by proposing several different
possible approaches to ensuring that a decision is reached.

> we really should not care how they make a decision.

The problem we are fixing is a known *inability* to make a decision
in some cases.

> the confirming body says neither yes, nor no within a reasonable 

If you really think you will persuade folks, a more productive approach
might be to post some specific proposed text (call it "J" maybe)
and see if others buy into that.

So far, I'm not at all persuaded by your commentary.
I remain quite happy with the H2 language as solving the known problem.

Best wishes,

Ran
[email-masked]