Subject: Mid discussion update on IESG Issues

From: Avri Doria <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 18 Oct 2003 22:25:24 +0900

We are about half through the discussion period, so I thought I would  
do a recap of where I think we are.
I have inserted he brief recap of my impression of the status follow  
the "DISCUSSION SO FAR:" under each issue description (sent originally)

This is _not_ a consensus call, just a review of current status.   
Though I do recommend that the editorial nits can be taken care of  
without further discussion.  Should anyone object concerning any of  
these nits, please speak up.  I also suggest that proposed clarifying  
text for those issues needing clarification be submitted to the list so  
it can be agreed upon.

Issues that seem to  still require work are: 1, 2, 10, 17, 24

Though all issues are still open to comment and discussions

And please let me know if I got any of the recap wrong.

thanks
a.

-----------------------------

Issue 1-3 are 'showstopper" Issues that must be resolved before the  
document will be allowed to proceed.

------------------
IESG Issue 1:
------------------

> 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.
>

History: This issue was not discussed

Questions:

Should it be mandatory that the required qualifications list be made  
public?

  If not, should the required qualifications list be confidential?

DISCUSSION SO FAR:   5 comments

The information should not be confidential.  It should be published.

Recommended wording change submitted on the list:

OLD NEW:

    14.  The Chair obtains the list of IESG and IAB positions to be
	  reviewed and a description of the desirable qualifications for

         those positions. This information is announced, along with a
         solicitation for names of volunteers from the IETF community
         willing to serve on the nominating committee.

NEW:

    14.  The Chair obtains the list of IESG and IAB positions to be
	  reviewed and a description of the desirable qualifications for
            those positions. This information is announced on
            [email-masked], along with a solicitation for names
            of volunteers from the IETF community willing to serve on
           the nominating committee.

Is this wording acceptable?

> ------------------------------------------------------------------

-----------------
IESG Issue 2
-----------------
> raised by Margaret Wasserman:

>> 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.

Background:

The issue was first brought up
     http://lists.elistx.com/archives/ietf-nomcom/200303/msg00020.html

>>>
>>>> >>Insert in section 3 as paragraph 6 and renumber all subsequent  
>>>> paragraphs:
>>>>
>>>> "Nomcom-caused Mid-term Vacancies:
>>>>
>>>>  From time to time the Nomcom may propose moving a serving Area  
>>>> Director or
>>>> IAB member from one position to another. (E.g. moving a Transport  
>>>> AD to
>>>> cover O&M). If the serving member is at the end of their normal  
>>>> term there
>>>> is no change in procedures. Otherwise, this is treated as a mid-term
>>>> vacancy and mid-term procedures are used with the following  
>>>> exceptions:
>>>>
>>>> a) If the vacancy will occur on the IAB due to a move from the IAB  
>>>> to the
>>>> IESG, the Nomcom may, upon confirmation of nominee/IAB member,  
>>>> submit for
>>>> confirmation as part of the normal slate of candidates another  
>>>> nominee to
>>>> complete the term of the departing IAB member. If the Nomcom  
>>>> declines to
>>>> nominate a replacement as part of the annual process, the IAB may,  
>>>> at any
>>>> time after the confirmation of the departing member, ask the Nomcom  
>>>> to fill
>>>> the slot using mid-term procedures.
>>>>
>>>> b) If the vacancy will occur on the IESG, either as a move to  
>>>> another IESG
>>>> slot or as a move to the IAB, the Nomcom must use mid-term  
>>>> procedure rules.
>>>> Most importantly, they must advertise the vacancy, and must  
>>>> consider all
>>>> new candidates as equitably as any previously considered. The IESG  
>>>> chair is
>>>> responsible for notifying the IETF Executive director of the  
>>>> vacancy and
>>>> who in turn is responsible for asking the Nomcom select the  
>>>> replacement.
>>>> The Nomcom is explicitly barred from proceeding without an explicit  
>>>> request
>>>> from the IESG chair. The term of the nominee shall be for the  
>>>> remainder of
>>>> the term of the vacated position."

The recommended text change was never discussed on the list.

The issue surrounding the 'poaching' issue was discussed but the  
discussion centered on the serialization described in 2727bis-07.    
However, none of the discussions were about the result of moving  
someone from a non open seat on the IESG to fill an IAB slot and thus  
having to fill an unannounced IESG slot.

Questions:

Does the document need to be explicit about treating the replacement of  
an IESG member in an non open chair differently the the replacement of  
an IAB member in a non open seat?

Do full mid term replacement rules, including public announcement apply  
to this case?

DISCUSSION SO FAR:  8 messages

The existing text has been interpreted differently by different  
commentaries.  This is an indication that no matter what the resolution  
on the substantive issue, the text needs to clarified.

Several agree that the vacancy should be treated as a mid-term vacancy  
with announcement of the vacancy.

There is an indication that the case filling an incomplete term IAB  
seat is different from filling an incomplete term IESG seat.

There is an argument that it should not be difficult to move people  
into different positions and therefore the procedure should allow  
quasi-simultaneous filling of created openings.

Several fixes were suggested:

A. 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 mid-term vacancies.

B. 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.

C. 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.

Note: the issue of prohibiting dual membership was discussed previously  
in
the WG and a decision was made to discourage but not prohibit.

Status:  This issue has not yet been resolved

> ----------------------------------------------------------------

------------------
IESG Issue 3;
------------------
> 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.

Background:

This particular issue was never discussed, but the issue of  
confidentiality was frequently discussed in many different contexts.   
Section 10, Security, discusses the extension of confidentiality to  
those outside the Nomcom when necessary, though it is not explicit that  
this extension would also apply to the IAB, IESG or ISOC in the case of  
Nomcom operational issues.

I also note that in the text Thomas quoted, it does state that after  
reporting the Issues to the chair or committee they only escalate if '  
they cannot resolve the issue between themselves'.  It is, perhaps,  
implicit in this that they can and should discuss with the past chair.

Questions:

Does content need to be added to the text to  allow extension of  
confidentiality to the Liaison in the case of reporting issues having  
to do with the internal operations of the Nomcom?

Does content need to be added to explicitly state that liaisons should  
consult among themselves and with the past chair before escalating an  
issue to their respective I-groups?

DISCUSSION SO FAR:  1 comment

Doing so would blur the lines in confidentiality.  Recommendation that  
the clarification mentioned above be added to the text.

> ----------------------------------------------------------------------- 
> ---

Issue 4-26 are not considered 'showstoppers' but should be addressed  
before sending the document back to the IESG

------------------
IESG Issue 4:
------------------

> Steve Bellovin:
> Comment:
> The recall section makes no provision or even suggestion that the  
> Recall Chair verify the putative signers.

Note: the Recall Chair would probably not be selected until there was a  
requirement for a recall committee and would probably be avaialble to  
verify the signatories.

Questions:

Should text be added to clarify that signatories must be confirmed to  
be qualified members of the IETF community according to Nomcom  
selection rules?

If so, should it be done by  the IETF Secretariat as is the case in  
verifying Nomcom volunteers.

DISCUSSION SO FAR: 1 comment

Yes to both suggestions.

------------------
IESG Issue 5:
------------------

>
> 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.

Question: Should WG chairs be added to the list of those who should be  
consulted?

DISCUSSION SO FAR: 5 comments

Yes WG chairs should be added.  There was one suggestion that editors  
be added as well.

-----------------
IESG Issue 6
-----------------

>
> 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".

Question: Should this text, or some other text, replace the current  
text in A2

DISCUSSION SO FAR:  1 comment

The clarification is ok.

-----------------
IESG Issue 7
-----------------

>
> 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.

Questions:

Is a change to the text required to make the two situation consistent?

DISCUSSION SO FAR:  2 comments

There was no substantive comment on the issue.

-----------------
IESG Issue 8
-----------------

>
>>        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...)

Questions:

Is the editorial change accepted?

Is text making it explicit that the maximum assignable term is 3 years  
needed?

DISCUSSION SO FAR: 1 comment

No harm in adding clarification

-----------------
IESG Issue 9
-----------------

>
>>        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.

Background:  Section 4.3 indicates that non volunteers vote on all  
issues other then candidate selection.

Questions:

Should the participation of the non volunteers in voting issues be made  
explicit?

Should the non volunteers be excluded from voting on voting rules?

DISCUSSION SO FAR: 1 comment

A note that I misinterpreted the issue and that the issue concerned the  
vote needing to be unanimous.
The recommendation is that this vote should go by the same rules as  
expressed elsewhere; i.e there should not be a rule forcing a unanimous  
vote.  Recommendation that the text should be clarified.

-----------------
IESG Issue 10
-----------------

>
>>        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.)

Background:  While the document discusses the quorum that must be  
present for a vote, the actual voting mechanisms are to be be  
determined by the Nomcom itself.

Question: should text be added making an explicit rule for the voting  
in a Nomcom recall be specified in the document.

DISCUSSION SO FAR:  2 comments

2 answers of yes.
- suggestion of 2/3 or majority
- comment that 2/3 was too stringent.

-----------------
IESG Issue 11
-----------------

>
>>    4.  Confirmed candidates are expected to serve at least a 2 year
>>        term.
>
> not consistent with interim appointments

Question: Should clarifying text indicate that  the Confirmed  
candidates, chosen by the standard process, as opposed to mid term  
appointments, be expected to seve at least 2 years.

Answers so far:  1

While not necessary clarification would be ok.

-----------------
IESG Issue 12
-----------------

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

Question: Is the editorial change accepted?

DISCUSSION SO FAR:  1 comment

Editorial nit

-----------------
IESG Issue 13
-----------------

>
>>        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

Question: Is the editorial change accepted?

DISCUSSION SO FAR:  1 comment

Editorial nit

-----------------
IESG Issue 14
-----------------

>
>
>>        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?)

Questions:

Is the editorial change accepted?

Is further explanation necessary indicating that the non volunteers  
participate in all votes except those dealing with candidate selection?

DISCUSSION SO FAR:  1 comment

Editorial change should be accepted

Further clarification would be ok as 'an overarching statement'
(don't think i understand what that means)

-----------------
IESG Issue 15
-----------------

>
>>    6.  A Chair, in consultation with the Internet Society President,
>>        may appoint a temporary substitute.
>
> Better to say "... for the Chair position".

Question: Is the editorial change accepted?

DISCUSSION SO FAR:  1 comment

Editorial nit.

-----------------
IESG Issue 16
-----------------

>
>>        If they can not resolve the issue between themselves liaisons
>
> comma after themselves.

Question: Is the editorial change accepted?

DISCUSSION SO FAR: 1 comment

Editorial nit

-----------------
IESG Issue 17
-----------------

>
>>        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.

Questions;

Is this an editorial or content change?

Is the change accepted?

Answers so far: 2

- both answers:  It is content not editorial

- 1 answer: without change leaves situation open
- 1 answer: intentionally left open

Further discussion ?

-----------------
IESG Issue 18
-----------------

>
>>        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.

Question:   Is the more explicit rewording accepted?

Answers for far: 1

Editorial nit

-----------------
IESG Issue 19
-----------------

>
> 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.
>

Question: Should the discussion in Section 3 bullet 3, be expanded to  
include a discussion of why 1/2 at a time?

Answers so far: 1

Clarification unnecessary but would not be a problem

-----------------
IESG Issue 20
-----------------

> 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".

Background:  this text was never discussed in the working group.

Question: Should the second sentence be removed or reworked?

DISCUSSION SO FAR:  1 comment

No change necessary

Though I wonder whether the ongoing discussion under the topic  
Transition Rules warrants that some clarifying text be inserted here.

-----------------
IESG Issue 21
-----------------

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

Question: Should the document be renumbered using a more conventional  
numbering scheme?

DISCUSSION SO FAR: 2 comments

Yes, it would be better.

-----------------
IESG Issue 22
-----------------

>
>>  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/

Discussion:  Seems largely editorial.  But the added precision does not  
make the English incorrect.  Nor does its removal.

question: Is the changed accepted.

DISCUSSION SO FAR:  2 comments

The change is not necessarily editorial and should not be accepted.

-----------------
IESG Issue 23
-----------------

>
>>  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.

Same as issue 11

DISCUSSION SO FAR:  1 comment

I should not ask twice.  Using comment in 11: clarification is ok.

-----------------
IESG Issue 24
-----------------

>
>>      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.

Questions:

Should the question of starting time for IAB be separated from the  
question of IESG?

Should it be pointed out that since IAB members do not replace specific  
IAB members, it is consistent that new IAB members may overlap with  
retiring IAB members?

DISCUSSION SO FAR: 2 comments

- 1 that the IAB should be a separate case and should happen at the end  
of the week
- 1 that the current, flexible, "during the week" handoff be retained

-----------------
IESG Issue 25
-----------------

>> 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.

Clarification: The first mention of the possible appointment of a  
Internet Society liaison is in 4.9

There seem to be two issues here,
- an editorial one dealing with a forward reference and the fact that  
there may not be a ISOC liaison
- an issue of whether the Nomcom procedures should specify how the ISOC  
Trustees choose a liaison if they decide to offer one.

Possible remedy to the editorial issue:

- move the content of 4.9 into 4.3 and edit the text in 4.7 to add the  
phrase 'if one has been appointed', right after Trustees.

Question: should this or some other change be made to the text?

  Discussion of the second issue:

Generally the rough consensus of the group was that the way the IAB or  
IESG made their decisions was not  to be defined by this document  
(though there was significant discussion around the IAB role as a  
confirming body).  Does this rough consensus also apply to the Internet  
Society Trustees should they decide to send a liaison?  We should note  
that part of the reason Internet society Liaisons were made  
discretionary is that the IETF was not viewed as having the mandate to  
dictate actions to the Internet Society Trustees in its BCPs.

Question:  Should text be added describing how the Internet Society  
Trustees pick their liaison, should they decide to send one?

DISCUSSION SO FAR: 1 comment

Yes to the editorial change.
But the selection process is up to ISOC not the IETF

-----------------
IESG Issue 26
-----------------

>
> 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.
>
>

Question: Should the draft be restructured prior to resubmission?

DISCUSSION SO FAR: 1 comment

Recommends against

---

From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2003 11:16:20 -0700

Since this issue was listed as needing further discussion, I'll put my two 
cents in.....

--On 18. oktober 2003 22:25 +0900 Avri Doria <[email-masked]> wrote:

> present for a vote, the actual voting mechanisms are to be be  determined
> by the Nomcom itself.
>
> Question: should text be added making an explicit rule for the voting  in
> a Nomcom recall be specified in the document.
>

This is another piece of code that has never been run.
I was reading "at least a quorum has to agree" as "the number of people 
required to make a quorum has to agree". That number is 75% of the nomcom 
according to section 5 bullet 6.

I'm not averse to saying 2/3, but a simple majority of a minimum quorum 
(approx 38%) doesn't seem right to me. IMHO, removing a nomcom member 
SHOULD be a crisis mesaure, not a routine matter.

But since my reading wasn't what other people read into it, I agree that 
the issue needs to be clarified.

Suggested change, also fixing the grammar nit:

OLD:

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

NEW:

        A member may be recalled if at least a quorum of all committee
        members (defined above as 75%) vote for the recall.

                     Harald

---

From: Avri Doria <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2003 16:35:03 +0200

Well the timed discussion has ended, but we still have not resolved the 
still open issues, including 2 of those that are gating issues for the 
IESG.

i.e. Issues 1, 2, 10, 17, 24.  The current status can be found in:
http://lists.elistx.com/archives/ietf-nomcom/200310/msg00090.html

At this point I will request a meeting slot at IETF58 so that these 
issues can be discussed and hopefully proposed solutions can be 
proposed.  Of course it would be best if the discussions continues on 
line.

I also propose that the editor take the other issues and incorporate 
changes in the draft so that these can also be open to review in Minn.

Thanks
a.