Subject: Issue: Transition rules?

From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2003 10:09:56 +0200

because of the timing stuff, this has gone from a non-issue to perhaps an 
issue......

the current nomcom doc says nothing about when it takes effect, or what 
that effect is on a currently seated nomcom.

I think one sensible procedure would be that it takes effect the moment the 
ISOC Board accepts a motion to observe that this is current IETF procedure 
(or some other convoluted wording), and that a sitting nomcom switch to 
using the rules as far as possible, but does not change decisions taken in 
the past (for instance, the change in selection rules would not force a 
current nomcom member to resign, but the sitting nomcom would be expected 
to use the new rules when communicating with the confirming bodies).

1) Does that make sense?
2) Should the document say so?

Of course, an alternate is that the rules take effect when the IESG has 
approved the document. Thoughts?

                 Harald

---

From: James M Galvin <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2003 12:07:23 -0400 (EDT)

In general, all approved documents take effect immediately.  I don't
believe this document should be any different and I don't believe we
need to state that explicitly.

However, I presume you are suggesting we document the "edge case" of
whether or not an operational NOMCOM is required to employ a revised
document if one is published during its tenure?  (It's probably worth
noting for completeness there is always an operational NOMCOM, and in
the current draft revision there is a short period of time when two may
be operating concurrently.)

With protocols I believe we all expect that when a revision is published
it will be adopted immediately and implementations will transition as
soon as possible.  It's not a perfect expectation but it mostly works.
We should have the same situation with this document.

Do we need to document that?

I would not do it in this document.  If we believe that IETF procedures
in general should be adopted when approved then let's make that the
policy for all procedures.  I do not believe this document should be
special with respect to this issue.

I think we should have just such a policy.

Jim

On Mon, 13 Oct 2003, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:

    Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2003 10:09:56 +0200
    From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
    To: [email-masked]
    Subject: Issue: Transition rules?

    1) Does that make sense?

                     Harald

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

---

From: Robert Elz <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2003 23:21:42 +0700

Date:        Mon, 13 Oct 2003 10:09:56 +0200
    From:        Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
    Message-ID:  <22054032.1066039796@localhost>

  | I think one sensible procedure would be that it takes effect the moment the 
  | ISOC Board accepts a motion to observe that this is current IETF procedure 
  | (or some other convoluted wording), and that a sitting nomcom switch to 
  | using the rules as far as possible,

In this particular case, I see no harm from that, but in general, I
think this would be an intolerable burden to place upon the nomcom,
so, no, this would be wrong.

The rules place burdens upon the nomcom itself as well as define how it
works to select IAB and IESG members - volunteers sign up to participate
on the nomcom upon the basis of the rules that exist.   Changing the
rules mid-stream is totally unreasonable.

The rules for a nomcom need to be fixed at the point the nomcom is formed
(when the people selected agree to their selection as part of the nomcom).

Changes after that should apply to the next nomcom only.

That may make life difficult for the IETF and this particular nomcom, as
the new doc wasn't done in time for it, but as a general principle, this
is the way things should work.

The next (sigh) revision of the nomcom doc should probably make specific rules
for this kind of thing, in which case it may be reasonable to divide the
various procedures into two groups - one which can be changed at any time
and immediately effect the nomcom process from the point it is adopted, and
the other for which no changes can affect a sitting nomcom.

But it is certainly too late now for anything like that to be done for
the nomcom that is just commencing, or ulness the entire doc is to be
re-opened for scrutiny, for the current proposed revision of the procedures.

kre

ps: adopting this attitude also means I don't need to get involved in the
petty argument about exactly who's approval stamp is the one that matters...

---

From: Michael StJohns <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2003 12:28:40 -0400

>be operating concurrently.)

No.  The problem is that there are possible edge conditions between the two 
documents (2727 vs 2727bis).  One example right off the top:  2727bis 
allows a challenge to the selection process for the Nomcom and sets a 1 
week period after the selection has been made for that challenge, 2727 
doesn't have such a concept.  Say 2727bis is approved during the one week 
period (which it won't be) - which rule applies?  Say its approved one 
month later - an argument could be made that challenges could occur from 
the approval date for the one week.  An edge case that has no prima facia 
resolution.  (Note - one such challenge would be that the Nomcom chair 
excluded from the volunteer pool people who were qualified under 2727bis 
rules of 3 of 5).

There may be others where process under 2727 conflicts with, impedes or 
differs from 2727bis.

Regardless, this nomcom should follow 2727 and assuming 2727bis gets 
approved, the next nomcom can follow 2727bis.

Note that none of the above prohibits the sitting nomcom from adopting 
procedure rules from 2727bis that don't conflict with 2727, but that's 
their choice, not ours.

Later, Mike

---

From: Robert Elz <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2003 00:02:56 +0700

Date:        Tue, 14 Oct 2003 12:07:23 -0400 (EDT)
    From:        James M Galvin <[email-masked]>
    Message-ID:  <[email-masked]>

  | With protocols I believe we all expect that when a revision is published
  | it will be adopted immediately and implementations will transition as
  | soon as possible.

Huh?   You mean that if I have an existing SMTP connection, and a new
doc is approved that alters the SMTP dialog, you expect my currently
running processes to adapt to the new procedure and enforce the new rules?

No-one does that - new rules are only ever used by new connections set up
after they have been adopted, and implemented.   To get an existing connection
to use them, the only way is to kill the connection, and start it all over
again under a new implementation.

If what you're suggesting is that an existing nomcom should be (metaphorically)
killed, and then reconstituted under the new procedures, then fine, that
would be a possibility - but I don't think it is one that anyone would
consider very seriously.

kre

ps: in case there is any doubt, I'm in total agreement with Mike.

---

From: James M Galvin <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2003 13:09:44 -0400 (EDT)

On Tue, 14 Oct 2003, Michael StJohns wrote:

    >document if one is published during its tenure?

    No.  The problem is that there are possible edge conditions between
    the two documents (2727 vs 2727bis).  One example right off the top:
    2727bis allows a challenge to the selection process for the Nomcom
    and sets a 1 week period after the selection has been made for that
    challenge, 2727 doesn't have such a concept.  Say 2727bis is
    approved during the one week period (which it won't be) - which rule
    applies?  Say its approved one month later - an argument could be
    made that challenges could occur from the approval date for the one
    week.  An edge case that has no prima facia resolution.

If we adopt the rule that a new document is "in force" as soon as it is
approved, then we also need Harald's earlier suggestion that the new
document applies from that moment forward, i.e., you don't revisit
earlier decisions.

So, while agree there are "significant" differences between rfc2727 and
rfc2727bis, I don't see the problem in your example.  Specifically, if
2727bis is approved during what would be the one week challenge period
the answer is there is no challenge.  The event that would have
permitted the challenge has passed and was completed under the old
rules.  Therefore the new rule of a challenge period does not apply.

Jim

---

From: James M Galvin <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2003 13:18:04 -0400 (EDT)

On Wed, 15 Oct 2003, Robert Elz wrote:

      | With protocols I believe we all expect that when a revision is
      | published it will be adopted immediately and implementations
      | will transition as soon as possible.

    Huh?  You mean that if I have an existing SMTP connection, and a new
    doc is approved that alters the SMTP dialog, you expect my currently
    running processes to adapt to the new procedure and enforce the new
    rules?

Of course not.

The point is, when a revision is approved it is presumed to be the
authority from that point forward.  Does that mean we sit in judgement
of those who don't *immediately* upgrade?  Of course not.

When transition is an issue we account for the explicitly in protocols.
We either ensure backward compatibility (to the greatest extent
possible) in the new protocol or we accept that there will be two valid
protocols for a period of time and we deal with it in some other way.

The principle is still that the new document is the authority.

Why shouldn't that be the case here with the additional caveat that we
don't revisit earlier decisions?  In essense, not revisiting prior
decisions (past events) is the transition plan or backward
compatibility.

    If what you're suggesting is that an existing nomcom should be
    (metaphorically) killed, and then reconstituted under the new
    procedures, then fine, that would be a possibility - but I don't
    think it is one that anyone would consider very seriously.

Again, of course not.  I'm suggesting the NOMCOM would simply continue
as it was but it would adopt the new document rules and procedures from
the point that it was approved.

Jim

---

From: Michael StJohns <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2003 14:12:45 -0400

At 13:09 10/16/2003, James M Galvin wrote:
>  Specifically, if

*buzzzz*  Wrong answer.  For example, under US law, if a change in the law 
introduces a new cause of action, and that cause of action has a statute of 
limitations clause, the limitation begins with the effective date of the 
law, not with the event that was the cause of action - unless explicitly 
excluded by the law.

This is as reasonable an interpretation as the interpretation (you mention) 
that things this document mentioned that have already happened are not 
subject to the document.  I don't know that we can make this a blanket 
statement without reviewing in painful details line by line and coming up 
with a specific implementation guidance that then needs similar approval.

Easier by far to just say that this doesn't apply to this nomcom since the 
panel is now empaneled.

Later, Mike

---

From: James M Galvin <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2003 14:29:26 -0400 (EDT)

On Thu, 16 Oct 2003, Michael StJohns wrote:

    >rules.  Therefore the new rule of a challenge period does not apply.

    *buzzzz* Wrong answer.  For example, under US law, if a change in
    the law introduces a new cause of action, and that cause of action
    has a statute of limitations clause, the limitation begins with the
    effective date of the law, not with the event that was the cause of
    action - unless explicitly excluded by the law.

*buzzzz* Wrong answer. The cause of action is history.  The new rule
does not apply.

Let's be precise for the sake of discussion.  Continuing with your
example isn't this the sequence of events:

1. NOMCOM members selected.

   Under old rules we are now done with this step.

   Under news rules a one week challenge period would begin but since
   the new rules are not in effect there is no challenge period.

2. New rules are approved.

   Since the new rules were approved after the NOMCOM was selected that
   decision is history.  A challenge period does not spring into
   existence with the approval of the new rules because the challenge
   period would only exist if the decision that supported the challenge
   period was made under the new rules.  Under the old rules there is no
   challenge period.

3. One week after NOMCOM selected.

   Just another day....

I don't see the problem.

Jim

---

From: Robert Elz <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2003 17:16:33 +0700

Date:        Thu, 16 Oct 2003 13:18:04 -0400 (EDT)
    From:        James M Galvin <[email-masked]>
    Message-ID:  <[email-masked]>

  | The point is, when a revision is approved it is presumed to be the
  | authority from that point forward.

Yes, but only for new things - we never expect something that is already
in progress to suddenly adopt the new procedures.

We don't for protocols, and shouldn't for procedures - in both cases, except
where there is something that explicitly says what should happen.

The best thing to do here is simply for the existing nomcom to agree to follow
the new doc as much as it can.

kre

---

From: James M Galvin <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2003 08:52:49 -0400 (EDT)

On Fri, 17 Oct 2003, Robert Elz wrote:

    The best thing to do here is simply for the existing nomcom to agree
    to follow the new doc as much as it can.

Agreed.

Jim

---

From: Michael StJohns <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2003 10:26:17 -0400

Agreed - but its THEIR choice at this point - not the Nomcom WG, IAB, or 
ISOCs.  They could agree to follow the new rules THAT DON'T CONFLICT WITH 
2727 even prior to approval by the ISOC.

Later, Mike