Subject: Re: Last Call: draft-dawkins-nomcom-dont-wait (Nominating Committee Process: Earlier Announcement of Open Positions and Solicitation of Volunteers) to BCP

From: Russ Housley <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2009 05:19:02 -0400

The IETF Last Call resulted in a healthy discussion with many people 
speaking.  Some people think that the open list is the right thing to 
do, but other people  want to redesign the entire NomCom process from 
a base set of principles.  This message summarizes my view of the 
consensus following that discussion, and it suggests a way forward.

Overall, I think there is community support for open lists.  However, 
there are a few shades of gray regarding issues that were raised in 
the IETF Last Call.

For publication of an open list being mandatory...
... I judge the consensus to be against it. That is, publication of 
an open list by NomCom is allowed but not required.

For allowing NomCom to suppress names ...
... I judge the consensus to allow it.  That is, the community does 
not want to tie the NomCom hands as there may be cases where it is 
the right thing to do.

For open feedback sessions on IAB/IESG/AD/WG chair performance and 
interaction with NomCom when some people being discussed are under 
consideration by NomCom ...
... I judge the consensus to be that the community does not consider 
this to be a real problem.  The community wants NomCom-selected 
leadership to be able to publicly seek feedback on their performance. 
It is also silly to ask NomCom to ignore any public feedback sessions 
that might occur.

For allowing nominees to say "but the incumbent is better" in public ...
... I judge the consensus to be against such statements.  We also 
want to avoid statements that say, "I'm running because the current 
guy isn't doing a good job".

For statements of opinion in the draft ("the community might accept") ...
... I will have the author remove them before IESG 
evaluation.  Spencer included this material to indicate that comments 
from earlier reviews were heard..  However, I think that potential 
concerns about open nominee lists should go in an appendix.  This 
material could be useful in the future.

For MUST NOT lobby or campaign ...
... I judge that the community did not reach consensus on this 
topic.  Important points include:
1) It was pointed out that the only enforcement mechanism available 
is for NomCom to do something if it happens.  If public statements of 
support are perceived to work, then we have changed the process in a 
way that we want to avoid.
2) Refusal to consider people just because someone else made a public 
statement of support seems unwise.  That would be a serious DOS attack.
3) We should have MUST NOT precisely because we can't enforce the 
rules, so they need to look strong.
... I have asked the author to rewrite this section to make these points:
1) Nominee encouraged lobbying and campaigning are considered 
unacceptable behavior.
2) NomCom cannot be expected to completely ignore any lobby or 
campaign effort that might occur; however, NomCom ought to consider 
the judgment of any nominee that encourages or supports such activities.

I suggest that the best way forward from this point is to have the 
author post an updated I-D, and then conduct a focused IETF Last Call 
on the one yet-to-be-resolved issue.

Russ Housley
General Area Director

---

From: Russ Housley <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2009 08:07:02 -0400

Ooops.  I sent this on the wrong thread.  The 
draft-dawkins-nomcom-dont-wait document is approved, and it is in the 
RFC Editor queue.  This message was about the 
draft-dawkins-nomcom-openlist document.  I'll resend this message on 
the proper thread so that people will be able to locate it with 
expected searches in the future.

Russ

At 05:19 AM 7/27/2009, Russ Housley wrote:
>speaking.  Some people think that the open list is the right thing 
>to do, but other people  want to redesign the entire NomCom process 
>from a base set of principles.  This message summarizes my view of 
>the consensus following that discussion, and it suggests a way forward.
>
>Overall, I think there is community support for open 
>lists.  However, there are a few shades of gray regarding issues 
>that were raised in the IETF Last Call.
>
>leadership to be able to publicly seek feedback on their 
>performance. It is also silly to ask NomCom to ignore any public 
>feedback sessions that might occur.
>
>evaluation.  Spencer included this material to indicate that 
>comments from earlier reviews were heard..  However, I think that 
>potential concerns about open nominee lists should go in an 
>appendix.  This material could be useful in the future.
>
>is for NomCom to do something if it happens.  If public statements 
>of support are perceived to work, then we have changed the process 
>in a way that we want to avoid.
>2) Refusal to consider people just because someone else made a 
>public statement of support seems unwise.  That would be a serious DOS attack.
>author post an updated I-D, and then conduct a focused IETF Last 
>Call on the one yet-to-be-resolved issue.
>
>Russ Housley
>General Area Director