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

From: [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 07 Oct 2003 15:41:18 -0400

Hi Robert,

>   | -------------------------------------------------------------
>   | >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.   

In my opinion, there are two substantial differences:

	1) Providing a set of desirable qualifications is no longer
		optional.  As far as I know, it hasn't been done in
		the past, so this is a new requirement.

	2) The new document says who would provide this information
	   and how it would be sent to the nomcom, which was not 
         specified in RFC 2727:

           "The IESG and IAB are responsible for providing a list of the
           qualifications desired of the candidates selected for their
           respective open positions to the Executive Director.  The
           lists are to be provided to the nominating committee for its
           consideration."

The list of positions is posted publicly along with the call for
nominations.  So, would this information (which will come in through
the same channel, probably at the same time) also be posted publicly?

Or is it to be assumed, given that this communication is not explicitly
exempted from the nomcom confidentiality rules, that the description of
desirable qualifications would be kept confidential? 

> 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.

Not true.  Under the new draft, the IAB and IESG are required to
provide a set of desirable qualifications, and it is unclear whether
that information will be distributed publicly or kept confidential.

Under RFC 2727, the IESG and IAB were not required to submit this
information at all.  In general, I think that this information was
gathered by the nomcom through interviews with IESG and IAB members,
among others, and was therefore covered by nomcom confidentiality
rules.

> 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.

Nice posturing.

In reality, I think that everyone understands that it is not humanly 
possible for each IESG member to actively track and participate in
every IETF WG...

And, yet, we do require that the IESG review all of our documents for 
quality before publication.  IMO, the quality of a BCP process document 
is largely related to its clarity and consistency.

I am not saying that the WG has to change its position on whether
this information is disseminated publicly or kept private, or that
it has to follow my preferences regarding which one it chooses.
I am just saying that the document is unclear and incomplete because 
it doesn't specify this.

Margaret

---

From: Robert Elz <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 08 Oct 2003 20:17:08 +0700

Date:        Tue, 7 Oct 2003 15:41:18 -0400
    From:        <[email-masked]>
    Message-ID:  <[email-masked]>

Note, I have changed the Subject to better reflect the current
threading structure...

  | 	1) Providing a set of desirable qualifications is no longer
  | 		optional.  As far as I know, it hasn't been done in
  | 		the past, so this is a new requirement.

It hasn't?

Really?

About 7-9 years ago (I forget when exactly) a problem arose, in exactly
this area, where there was a whole bunch of confusion as to just what it
was the IESG wanted in one of their open positions.

Back then, as the result of the IAB confirmation process which couldn't
understand what the nomcom had done or why, and only after a bunch of
ferreting around discovered that there had been some ambiguous messages
from the IESG to the nomcom about just what the person who filled a
particular position should be capable of.

The result of all of that was the text that is in 2727 - I'd be astounded
to learn that since then no-one had bothered to take any notice, and I
actually find it very hard to believe that that is the case.

If it is, then I am certainly not in the slightest surprised that the new
doc is making it clear that this is expected to be done, and in no way
optional.

  | 	2) The new document says who would provide this information
  | 	   and how it would be sent to the nomcom, which was not 
  |          specified in RFC 2727:

Is this supposed to matter in some material way, or were you just pointing
out a technical difference?

  | The list of positions is posted publicly along with the call for
  | nominations.  So, would this information (which will come in through
  | the same channel, probably at the same time) also be posted publicly?

I agree with Scott's answer to Avri's question.   Yes, of course it is.

How could anyone rationally imagine a job ad (which is essentially what
a call for nominations is - except no remuneration is being offered...)
in which there was no statement of what qualifications and abilities are
expected of those who might apply (or be nominated for) the job in question.

That information is essential.

  | Not true.  Under the new draft, the IAB and IESG are required to
  | provide a set of desirable qualifications, and it is unclear whether
  | that information will be distributed publicly or kept confidential.

They were supposed to be required, and I would have assumed just based
upon good sense, they would have been, supplying this information all
along.   It is so inconceivable that anyone would want this information
to be considered confidential that I just assume no-one has bothered to
say that it should not be.

I'll leave the rest of the "posturing" for some other occasion...

kre

---

From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 08 Oct 2003 17:35:51 +0200

[taking IESG off the CC]

> That information is essential.

so let the document say that. Discussion over.

btw, I agree that this is a sensible thing for the document to say.