Subject: IESG Issue 2

From: Scott Bradner <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 08 Oct 2003 08:47:43 -0400 (EDT)

I see little reason to do a new search if the case is someone with
time left in their IAB term moving from the IAB to the IESG. I do
not see a realistic problem that would be solved by doing so.  The
community suggested people for the IAB already in the process and
the IAB members should be generalists (i.e. no IAB topic-specific
seats)

but the case of an IESG member with time left in their term
being moved to the IAB or another IESG seat should cause a 
new call for nominees to fill the open IESG seat

(while moving in mid term from the IESG to the IAB might not
have happened I can easily see the case (its not all that different
from someone just quiting being an IESG member which does happen)

Scott

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 08 Oct 2003 15:36:39 +0200

I think Scott is correct that there is an asymmetry.

An IAB member moving to an IESG position simply increases the number
of identical IAB slots to fill. The process should not require a new call for
nominees. What is described in the draft is appropriate.

An IESG member moving to the IAB creates an unannounced specific vacancy in 
the IESG. The process should require a new call for nominees.

I think the text needs to be revised to include this asymmetry.

   Brian

---

From: Robert Elz <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 08 Oct 2003 21:10:43 +0700

Date:        Wed, 08 Oct 2003 15:36:39 +0200
    From:        Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
    Message-ID:  <[email-masked]>

  | I think Scott is correct that there is an asymmetry.

I think there could be, but I don't see any reason that it needs to be so.

  | An IAB member moving to an IESG position simply increases the number
  | of identical IAB slots to fill. The process should not require a new
  | call for nominees.

Perhaps, but filling that last (new) open IAB position is hardly
critical to anything - the IAB would manage just fine with one less
member for a month or two.   I would not create a special case just
to avoid that.

  | What is described in the draft is appropriate.

You're assuming that what the draft says is what it was claimed to
say.   I disagree with that, I believe that if you read it carefully
you'll find it says nothing of the kind.

  | An IESG member moving to the IAB creates an unannounced specific vacancy in 
  | the IESG. The process should require a new call for nominees.

yes, absolutely, and that's what I think the draft now assumes.   Perhaps
it could be made clearer that this is what it is saying, but I believe that
is what is already there.

Given that, while I have no problem with clarifying text, I certainly would
not be adding special text to allow something different just so the IAB can
have an extra member a little quicker.

kre

---

From: "Joel M. Halpern" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 08 Oct 2003 10:21:13 -0400

While one may argue that the document should say that new IESG openings 
need to be "advertised", that is not what I understand it to currently say.

My understanding of the document and of the discussion in the working group 
is that we decided not to make moving people a major difficulty, and 
therefore decided to allow quasi-simultaneous filling of created openings.

My own reading and estimating of reactions is that if we declare that 
openings that are created by moving people must be publicly vacated, 
solicited, and filled then we are essentially telling the nomcom not to 
move people around.  Because no nomcom is going to want to make that much 
extra work for itself.
If we want to make moving people an emergency maneuver, we can.  I 
personally do not want to make such a change to the accepted practice.

Yours,
Joel M. Halpern

At 09:10 PM 10/8/2003 +0700, Robert Elz wrote:
>----------------------------------------------------------------
>To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription
>manager: <http://lists.elistx.com/subscribe>

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 08 Oct 2003 19:23:22 +0200

> need to be "advertised", that is not what I understand it to currently say.

Correct.

> therefore decided to allow quasi-simultaneous filling of created openings.

Correct. But if (and it seems unlikely to me) a sitting IESG member is
appointed to the IAB, and no nominees have been solicited for that IESG
slot, the current text seems to allow the Nomcom to pick a candidate out
of thin air. That seems like a bug. 

> move people around.  Because no nomcom is going to want to make that much

Yes. But the situation I've mentioned above (an Area Director jumps ship
late during the NomCom process to join the IAB) does seem like an
extraordinary case and not one that any NomCom is likely to create
spontaneously anyway. If we want to give the NomCom discretion to
move ADs around (and I think we do) let's just say so. We could replace
the whole disputed text, e.g.

It is consistent with these rules for the Nominating Committee
to nominate a sitting Area Director to a different Area and simultaneously
nominate a new Area Director to the position thus vacated, or to
nominate a sitting IAB member to an Area Director position and
simultaneously nominate a new IAB member to the position thus vacated.
Any other moves between positions must be treated as resignations
that create bmid-term vacancies.

   Brian

> personally do not want to make such a change to the accepted practice.

In terms of moving people between different AD slots, I agree. It's only
the case of creating a completely new vacancy by moving an AD to the
IAB that bothers me.

-- 
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Brian E Carpenter 
Distinguished Engineer, Internet Standards & Technology, IBM 

NEW ADDRESS <[email-masked]> PLEASE UPDATE ADDRESS BOOK

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 08 Oct 2003 19:23:22 +0200

Correct.

   Brian

---

From: Scott Bradner <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 08 Oct 2003 15:17:39 -0400 (EDT)

> that create bmid-term vacancies.

I'm fine with the 2nd part of this (IAB->IESG) but not as happy
with the first (AD->AD) without advertizing the slot

I suspect the change in personel in an area can change who is willing
to run (I'd run but I do not want to pair with FOO) often enough to
be an issue - and, in many areas each AD has their own expertise - a
call for nominees for an area when everyone is assuming that the
continuing AD will stay will take into account the expertise of the
continuing AD - i.e. the right people may not have been nominated
or agreed to run.

so I think that the AD->AD case needs to havethe newly vacent seat
advertized

Scott

---

From: Cees de Laat <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 08 Oct 2003 14:43:41 -0500

>  > simultaneously nominate a new IAB member to the position thus vacated.

Be careful with allowing simultaneous nomination when having moving 
AD's. We in the GGF (Global Grid Forum)  did a nomcom process which 
now completed successfully but we ran almost in the following problem:

If you candidate a sitting AD for for an IAB position and at the same 
time candidate someone for that vacated spot you run in the problem 
that if the original candidate is not confirmed for the IAB, he 
remains in the old position and you basically disclosed the name of a 
"runner up" to the confirming body of that first position.  It may be 
that the other AD position was also open and gives that confiming 
body knowledge in terms of "oke, if we reject this one, their next 
choise is that one". So the only clean way is to keep it a two step 
process.

In our  GGF case this situation of "rejected" did not happen, but 
could have been.

Best regards,
Cees.
-- 
http://www.science.uva.nl/~delaat/

---

From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 08 Oct 2003 22:39:56 -0700

Brian and all,

  Brian, I know you are going to disagree with me again on this issue,
but candidates should be any participating IETF individual.  Let them
stand on their own merits and answer questions by the IETF
participants regarding any elected position.

> > >have an extra member a little quicker.

Regards,

--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 131k members/stakeholders strong!)
"Be precise in the use of words and expect precision from others" -
    Pierre Abelard
===============================================================
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: Michael StJohns <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2003 10:36:44 -0400

Sorry for ignoring this for as long as I have but I was hoping it would go 
away.

Since I'm the one who started the trend of moving people from one ADs job 
to another I figure I should try and make a constructive suggestion.

In general, each area has at least one AD position open and advertised each 
year (2 ADs alternating).

There are three cases to this - 1) Moving an expiring AD (e.g. one that's 
up for reappointment) from one solicited position to another (either AD or 
IAB), 2) Moving a non-expiring AD from their current non-advertised 
position to another AD job, and 3) Moving a non-expiring AD to the IAB.

1) No problem, both the old and new slots were advertised and the candidate 
vacates the old slot when the new appointee takes office.

2) Not much of a problem as long as the position (E.g. internet AD) was 
advertised - all you're doing is filling 2 copies of the position instead 
of one - and that's what happened under the Nomcom I chaired.  This isn't 
much different than what happens with the IAB.  If there is only one AD for 
an area (e.g. like Security and User Services used to be) and it wasn't 
being advertised, then the position needs to be filled as a mid term 
vacancy - but that should be rare under current organization.

3) This one is problematic and differs from 2 in that there is no absolute 
prohibition on someone being on both the IESG and the IAB.  With 2, the old 
position becomes vacant upon the AD accepting appointment to the new 
position and having the IAB approve it.  In 3, the old position doesn't 
become vacant until the AD explictly resigns.  Under current rules, this 
one should also be filled as a mid-term vacancy.  One of the reasons why I 
lobbied so hard for a rule prohibiting dual IAB/IESG membership was to make 
things like this easier to deal with.

Fix:  If the type of position (e.g. security AD) was advertised, the Nomcom 
can take action to fill it from the set of candidates it already has for 
that type of slot.  If the type of position was not advertised (e.g. 
because it was an off year and there was only one of that type) it must not 
take action to fill it and it must treat it as a mid-term 
vacancy.  However, once the candidate has accepted appointment to the new 
position and once the IAB has confirmed them and the announcement has been 
made, the Nomcom can immediately begin the process of selection for 
replacement.

Other fix:  Dual Membership on both the IAB and IESG is prohibited.  A 
nominee who accepts appointment to one body automatically vacates their 
position on the other body not later than noon on the last of the First 
IETF meeting.  As long as the to-be-vacated position type has been 
advertised, the Nomcom shall take action to fill it.

---

From: James M Galvin <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2003 12:32:38 -0400 (EDT)

I agree with Joel.

As I understood the prior discussion, the goal was to permit the NOMCOM
to complete its job as expeditiously as possible.  As a practical matter
this meant setting out rules so the NOMCOM could be done by the First
IETF instead of having to invoke the mid-term vacancy rules and extend
its job for another month.  So, the document makes it okay for only the
NOMCOM to know about the additional vacancy and for it to work to fill
it as best it can without announcing the actual vacancy itself -- which
doesn't really exist until there's been a formal resignation so what
we're really talking about here is making the resignation public.

I should point out that currently the IESG has two ADs in all areas
except the General Area.  What this means is that in all cases except
the General Area the community already knows that every area has an open
slot.  Thus, the NOMCOM is already working with a pool of candidates for
every area except the General Area.

Personally, I'm not concerned about the General Area since it is already
a special case.

I'm not in favor of forcing the advertisement of a mid-term vacancy, or
more precisely for an AD to resign publically in hopes of being approved
for an alternate position.  I don't have a problem with the NOMCOM
filling two slots, one I didn't know about upfront.

I'm also more concerned that the result of trying to "fix" this edge
case will be that "poaching" will no longer be practiced, since I can
not imagine a NOMCOM already worn out from 4 months of work that is
going to agree to another month.  The NOMCOM job is hard enough and I am
comfortable with this level of discretion.

Jim

On Wed, 8 Oct 2003, Joel M. Halpern wrote:

    Date: Wed, 08 Oct 2003 10:21:13 -0400
    From: Joel M. Halpern <[email-masked]>
    To: [email-masked]
    Subject: Re: IESG Issue 2

    Yours,
    Joel M. Halpern

---

From: Robert Elz <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2003 23:46:28 +0700

Date:        Mon, 13 Oct 2003 10:36:44 -0400
    From:        Michael StJohns <[email-masked]>
    Message-ID:  <[email-masked]>

  | 1) No problem, both the old and new slots were advertised and the candidate 
  | vacates the old slot when the new appointee takes office.

Yes, that one is a non-issue.

  | 2) Not much of a problem as long as the position (E.g. internet AD) was 
  | advertised - all you're doing is filling 2 copies of the position instead 
  | of one

You're assuming that all areas have 2 ADs.   They haven't in the past, and
most probably won't again.   [Actually, I see that you actually weren't when
I read further, you were just treating this as a special case, but allow me
to rant anyway, as I typed all this already...]

To take a most extreme example, suppose that in a year where the IETF
chair position (the general AD if you like) is not intended to be
re-nominated, and assume that the nomcom decides that the current incumbent
as IETF chair would be better placed as the (or an) AD for the foobar area
(or on the IAB).  Then the proceed to select someone else as IETF chair,
a position that wasn't supposed to be open.

This is the case that the rules really need to catch - make sure this is
spelled out clearly, and then just apply the same rule to all the other cases
and everything will be fine.  I see no need for special case rules, or
at least not until we have experience with a general rule causing problems.

In any case, I am not sure that I agree that "just filling two positions"
(without telling anyone - which the confidentiality rules require) is no
different than filling one slot.   When giving advice about who would be
a suitable candidate, one of the criteria needs to be how well they would
work with the sitting AD as joint managers of the area.   If that sitting AD
isn't to remain sitting at all, this could radically alter recommendations
for suitable people.   The same is true for people being willing to accept
nomination "Work with X, you must be joking" or "Yes, X is the other AD,
always wanted to work with X, so because of that I'll say yes".

  | 3) This one is problematic and differs from 2 in that there is no absolute 
  | prohibition on someone being on both the IESG and the IAB.  With 2, the old 
  | position becomes vacant upon the AD accepting appointment to the new 
  | position and having the IAB approve it.

Really?   Why?   Where's the prohibition on an AD being an AD for two areas?

While there might not be an absolute prohibition on anyone serving on the
IAB and IESG at the same time explicitly stated anywhere (under current rules)
there hasn't ever been an instance where (perhaps for more than a week or so
anyway) it has ever happened.   So there's a reasonable amount of "common law"
(or precedent) for that.  On the other hand, there have been several instances
through history where an AD has been AD for multiple areas (sometimes for 
years).  They may look like special cases, but they happened anyway (remember
also that the IESG defines its own structure - and is able to shuffle people
between areas, even close areas and create others, whenever it wants).

The IESG case is actually the harder one of the two, though I can't really
see much justification for treating "moving sitting IESG member to IAB" and
"moving sitting IESG member to another AD slot" as different in any way at all.

  | Fix:  If the type of position (e.g. security AD) was advertised, the Nomcom 
  | can take action to fill it from the set of candidates it already has for 
  | that type of slot.

I don't think that should be done.

  | If the type of position was not advertised (e.g. 
  | because it was an off year and there was only one of that type) it must not 
  | take action to fill it and it must treat it as a mid-term 
  | vacancy.  However, once the candidate has accepted appointment to the new 
  | position and once the IAB has confirmed them and the announcement has been 
  | made, the Nomcom can immediately begin the process of selection for 
  | replacement.

All that part seems fine to me, but I'd apply it in all cases, delete the
leading "if".   I certainly see no reason to delay starting the replacement
search until after the positions have been swapped around - the need for
any delay at all is just because of the confidentiality requirements (and
because until all this has happened, there's no guarantee that the move
will in fact happen).

kre

---

From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2003 19:52:21 +0200

> every area except the General Area.

Note that this year's nomcom will not consider the Internet area.