Subject: IESG issues with draft-ietf-nomcom-rfc2727bis-07

From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 07 Oct 2003 17:14:28 +0200

The IESG on October 2 evaluated the nomcom document.
It found a number of details that may need to be fixed, and three 
substantive issue that it seems to the IESG that it is necessary to fix.

The first 2 substantive issue was raised by Margaret Wasserman:

-------------------------------------------------------------
>In section 2:
>      The nominating committee will be given the title of the positions
>      to be reviewed and a brief description of the desirable set of
>      qualifications of the candidate that is nominated to fill each
>      position.

Is this information sent publicly or privately?  There are two issues
here:

1) I think that the "description of the desirable set of qualifications"
  should be posted publicly, along with the list of open positions when
  the call for nominations is sent.

2) The IESG and IAB should know, unambiguously, whether or not the
  information will be publicly disseminated before providing it.

------------------------------------------------------------------
>From section 3, subsection 8:
>      It is consistent with these rules for the announcements of a
>      resignation, of the existence of a mid-term vacancy, and of the
>      confirmed candidates to all occur at the same time as long as the
>      actual sequence of events that occurred did so in the following
>      order.
>
>      *  The nominating committee completes the advice and consent
>        process for the candidate already sitting on another body.
>
>      *  The newly confirmed candidate resigns from their current
>        position.
>
>      *  The body with the new mid-term vacancy requests that the
>        nominating committee fill the position.
>
>      *  The Executive Director of the IETF informs the nominating
>        committee of the mid-term vacancy.
>
>      *  The nominating committee acts on the request to fill the
>        mid-term vacancy

This section indicates that a position may be vacated and filled
without the community being notified that a position is open.  IMO, no
position should be filled without public notice that the position is
open and a public call for nominations.

I understand one shool of thought that says that this is okay for IAB
positions during the normal selection cycle.  Because IAB members
don't have separate responsibilities, it _might_ be okay to pick 6 IAB
members from a candidate pool for 5 open positions, for example.
However, even in this case, the community might want to know if a
person with a particular specialty/area of expertise was moving, so
that folks with that type of expertise could be nominated.

This section would also be problematic for IESG positions.  This could
arise in any case where one IESG position is filled by a sitting IESG
member who is not up for renewal.  For example, consider a situation
where the IESG chair does not volunteer for another term and is
replaced by a sitting IESG member who is not up for renewal.  Even
though there are two ADs for most areas, the ADs often divide up the
area into logical sections, requiring different expertise for each
position.

There are also issues with filling any postition according to this
section if it is applied to interim vacancies.  For example, the
nomcom should not be empowered to move an IAB member to the IESG to
fill and interim vacancy and replace the IAB member without making a
public call for nominations for the open IAB position.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The third substantive issue was raised by Thomas Narten:

>        Liaisons from the IESG, IAB, and Internet Society Board of
>        Trustees are expected to review the operation and executing
>        process of the nominating committee and to report any concerns
>        or issues to the Chair of the nominating committee immediately.
>        If they can not resolve the issue between themselves liaisons
>        must report the issue to their respective bodies.  If their
>        respective body agrees that there is an issue the liaison must
>        report it according to the dispute resolution process stated
>        elsewhere in this document.

I worry that there will be problems with the above in practice. In
particular, the text requires that a liaison report problems back to
their respective group (i.e., IESG or IAB) before invoking the formal
dispute resolution mechanism. But confidentiality rules rather limit
what the liaison can say to their body, and in the case where dispute
resolution may need invoking, it seems like details will be
important. I worry that this will create problems in practice, with it
being unclear what can be said. And if that is the case, it is unclear
what value the discussion within the respective I* would actually
have. This is perhaps more a problem for the IESG, since it has no
confirming role, but it seems like a general issue.

There are ways of dealing with this, but I'm not sure what is best or
what the WG might think. Some initial thoughts:

- I note that the current wording doesn't mention the obvious, i.e.,
  have the liaisons and previous chair get together and discuss
  before escalating. One could also have the liaison (independently)
  decide whether to formally appeal after such a consultation. This
  avoids the confidentiality issue and would seem like a necessary
  check as part of escalating issues.

- add some wording saying that confidentiality rules allow sharing of
  info as needed to assess whether to file a formal complaint.
--------------------------------------------------------------------

I think these needs to be discussed in the WG, and that they need to either 
have new text crafted or a justification for the current choices given.

The more-or-less minor issues can be found in the ID tracker:

<https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/pidtracker.cgi?command=view_id&dTag=90
01&rfc_flag=0>

and are also given below in raw format.
These are, in the opinion of the IESG, "non-show-stopper" issues - not 
things that are critical enough to block/delay publication of the document 
on their own, but important enough to be worth mentioning, in case they can 
be quickly fixed while the document is "open". It is up to the WG what to 
do with these.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Steve Bellovin:
Comment:
The recall section makes no provision or even suggestion that the Recall 
Chair verify the putative signers.

Section 5, Point 12 suggests that the committee consult with the sitting 
members of the IAB and IESG.  I think that consultation with WG chairs 
should be suggested.

Ted Hardie:
Comment:
I note that the oral tradition section indicates that no person should 
serve on both the IESG and IAB, except the IETF Chair who serves on both by
definition.  I believe that there is some lack of clarity on whether the IAB
Chair's role ex officio in the IESG means she "serves on", and that this is
probably not the place to resolve that or go into the liaisons from one
body to the other.  To capture the same thing, how about:

"No person should serve both on the IAB and as an Area Director, except
the IETF Chair whose roles  as an IAB member and Area Director of the 
General Area is set out elsewhere".

Thomas Narten:

 If a voting volunteer member is recalled the committee may
>        choose to proceed with only 9 voting volunteers at its own
>        discretion.  In all other cases the Chair must repeat the random
>        selection process including an announcement of the iteration

>        prior to the actual selection as stated elsewhere in this
>        document.

The above implies to me that the nomcome is required to find a
replacement for a resignation, but is not for a recall. Shouldn't the
nomcom be allowed to also not replace resignations? I.e, I assume that
the nomcom would have  the option of filling or not filling any nomcom
opening, regardless of how it occurs.

>        It is consistent with this rule for the nominating committee to
>        choose one or more of the currently open positions to which it
>        may assign a term greater than 2 years in order to ensure the
>        ideal application of this rule in the future.

s/greater than 2 years/of up to 3 years/

(right now, in theory, nomcom could pick the length of time, though I
suspect a lot of folk would be surprised if this ever happend...)

>        committee.  The addition must be approved by all members of the
>        committee according to its established voting mechanism.
>        Advisors participate as individuals.
>

"all members" wording implies everyone must agree. What is the intent
here? Is it "must be approved by a quorum of the committee according
to its established voting mechanism"? Note: similar wording appears
elsewhere.

>        conducted.  A member may recalled if at least a quorum of all
>        committee members agree, including the vote of the member being
>        recalled.

What does this mean? simple majority if there is a quorum? (I ask
because in most cases this document doesn't proscribe rules, leaving
that to the nomcom to decide.)

>    4.  Confirmed candidates are expected to serve at least a 2 year
>        term.

not consistent with interim appointments

>        First, when there is only one official nominating committee the

add comma after committee

>        As of the publication of this document the current mechanism is
      ^
>        an email message to both the "ietf" and the "ietf-announce"
>        mailing lists.

comma above

>        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.

s/specified/specified in this document/? (what is the intent?)

>    6.  A Chair, in consultation with the Internet Society President,
>        may appoint a temporary substitute.

Better to say "... for the Chair position".

>        If they can not resolve the issue between themselves liaisons

comma after themselves.

>        The confirmation process must be completed at least one month
>        prior to the First IETF.

s/must/should/ other parts of the document imply should on this topic.

>        The term of a nominating committee begins when its members are
>        officially announced.  The term ends at the Third IETF (not
>        three meetings) after the next nominating committee's term
>        begins.

ambigous wording. Reword:

        The term ends at the Third IETF (not three meetings), that is,
        the IETF after the next nominating committee's term begins.

Jon Peterson:
Comment:
The Introduction fastidiously notes that the organization of the IESG is 
outside the scope of the document. However, in so far as Section 3 bullet 3 
explains that half of the IESG positions are reviewed by the NomCom per 
year, would it make sense to mention at a high level that IESG members 
serve in specific Areas, and that the review process is staggered to 
preserve continuity and institutional memory within Areas? This seems like 
an important detail of the NomCom process to omit, even if it might change 
as the IETF changes. I'd note that Section 3 bullet 3 already has a caveat 
about future IESG reorganization, so I'm not sure how it would hurt to talk 
about the current IESG structure, in the interests of fully depicting the 
existing practice.

Margaret Wasserman:

Comment:
EDITORIAL:

>Abstract
>
>  The process by which the members of the IAB and IESG are selected,
>  confirmed, and recalled is specified.  This document is a
>  self-consistent, organized compilation of the process as it was known
>  at the time of publication.

Very weak...  I also don't think that the last sentence is true,
as this document changes some things.  Suggestions: Add a bit
more information (i.e mention the Nominations Commitee?) and remove
"as it was known at the time of publication".

The section numbering in this document doesn't match usual
conventions.  This makes it harder to refer to sections in this
document unambiguously.

>  3.  One-half of each of the then current IESG and IAB positions is
>      selected to be reviewed each year.

s/One-half of each of/One-half of/
s/positions is/positions are/

>      The intent of this rule to ensure the review of approximately
>      one-half of each of the IESG and IAB sitting members each year.

s/one-half of each of/one-half of/

>  4.  Confirmed candidates are expected to serve at least a 2 year
>      term.

This isn't always true.  Replacement candidates may serve
terms of less than two years.

>      A term may begin or end no sooner than the
>      first day of the meeting and no later than the last day of the
>      meeting as determined by the mutual agreement of the currently
>      sitting member and the confirmed candidate. The confirmed
>      candidate's term may overlap the sitting member's term during the
>      meeting as determined by their mutual agreement.

How does this apply to IAB terms?  In the case where there is
more than one new IAB member, I don't think that it is
defined which IAB member each new member is replacing.
>In section 4, subsection 7:
>        Liaisons from the IESG, IAB, and Internet Society Board of
>        Trustees are expected to review the operation and executing
>        process of the nominating committee and to report any concerns

There is a mention here of a liaison from the ISOC board.
But, there in section 4.3 there is a list of nomcom members
that indicates how they are selected, and the ISOC liaison
is not listed.

The organization of this document seems to result in repeating
a lot of information.  There are also a lot of forward
references.  This makes it difficult to find the part(s) of
the document that apply to a particular part of the process.

---

From: Robert Elz <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 08 Oct 2003 00:59:40 +0700

Date:        Tue, 07 Oct 2003 17:14:28 +0200
    From:        Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
    Message-ID:  <123885858.1065546868@localhost>

  | -------------------------------------------------------------
  | >In section 2:
  | >      The nominating committee will be given the title of the positions
  | >      to be reviewed and a brief description of the desirable set of
  | >      qualifications of the candidate that is nominated to fill each
  | >      position.
  | 
  | Is this information sent publicly or privately?

I'll just comment on this one for now ...

RFC2727 says:

      At a minimum, the nominating committee will be given the title of
      the position to be reviewed.  The nominating committee may be
      given a desirable set of qualifications for the candidate
      nominated to fill each position.

The replacement text is not substantially different.   2727 makes no
mention of whether or not that information is given publicly or privately.

Perhaps it should, perhaps this is something that doesn't need to be
stated.   There is nothing being changed here however.

One thing that is clear, is that if one were to desire that this be
made more precise, one way or the other, the correct procedure would
have been to bring it up to the working group when the document was
being considered.

It is totally unacceptable for IESG members, however well motivated,
to use their position on the IESG to force through changes to documents
that haven't been raised properly through the normal working group
procedures.

The truly stupid thing about this objection, is that if it were to cause
the IESG to reject the document, then the IETF will be left in exactly the
position that the objection complains about.

What should be done here, is to note this issue for the next time that
this document is to be revised, and if appropriate, fix it then.

kre

ps: if one were to decide that this document should be re-opened for new
issues, then all the stuff that got dropped before because of a desire
to get this done quickly, will reappear.   But, now that it seems that
the IESG delayed it long enough already that it is too late for this year's
nomcom, perhaps that is what should happen anyway.