Subject: Re: Last Call: draft-dawkins-nomcom-openlist (Nominating Committee Process: Open Disclosure of Willing Nominees) to BCP

From: Russ Housley <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2009 08:08:49 -0400

The IETF Last Call discussion of draft-dawkins-nomcom-openlist 
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: "Spencer Dawkins" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2009 14:44:43 +0200

Hi, Russ,

Here's where I am on this...

> The IETF Last Call discussion of draft-dawkins-nomcom-openlist 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.
>
> there are a few shades of gray regarding issues that were raised in the 
> IETF Last Call.
>
> ... I judge the consensus to be against it. That is, publication of an 
> open list by NomCom is allowed but not required.

Although 3777 doesn't use 2119 conventions (so I'm not introducing any 
reliance on these conventions in my update, I believe the use of "may" in 
the current text

  <t>The list of nominees willing to be considered for positions under 
review
   in the current NomCom cycle is not confidential.
   The NomCom may publish a list of names of nominees who are willing to be 
considered
   for positions under review to the community,
   in order to obtain feedback from the community on these nominees.
  </t>

says "allowed but not required".

> ... 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.

This was not addressed in the current text. I'm adding

  <t>The NomCom may choose not to include some names in the public list, if 
this is the
   right thing to do, in NomCom's opinion.
  </t>

> ... 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.

I'm reading this as "no change required".

> ... 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".

I'm reading this as "no change required".

> ... 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.

I removed the semi-snarky comments on each concern, and moved the list of 
concerns itself to an appendix.

> ... 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.
> 3) We should have MUST NOT precisely because we can't enforce the rules, 
> so they need to look strong.
> 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'm reading this as requesting text that looks like this:

  <t>Nominees may choose to ask people to provide feedback to NomCom, but
   should not encourage any public statements of support. NomComs should 
consider
      nominee-encouraged lobbying and campaigning to be unacceptable 
behavior,
  </t>

  <t>IETF community members are encouraged to provide feedback on nominees 
to NomCom, but
   should not post statements of support/non-support for nominees in any 
public forum.
  </t>

> 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.

Updated draft is now available at 
http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-dawkins-nomcom-openlist-05.txt

Thanks,

Spencer

---

From: Thomas Narten <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2009 13:15:20 -0400

>    in order to obtain feedback from the community on these nominees.

I'll just observer that there is a spectrum between "confidential" and
"not confidential" and "public".

Saying "not confidential" may result in the list not actually being
published publically, but being a very open non-secret. I.e, for all
practical purposes, public even without being formally published (say)
on the nomcom page.

And, what about candidates for which the nomcom decides their name
should not be publically posted. Their names are not "confidential"
per the above and presumably anyone else (or the nomcom) can name
them. The end result may well be that there is no way not to have a
name be made public.

>    right thing to do, in NomCom's opinion.

The "if this is the right thing to do" is asking for trouble, since
those words are more a statement of principle or morality than the
nomcom just deciding it has good reason not to publish a particular
name.

Can we please drop everything after the comma? (I'm not sure how to
reword it, since I think the only point that needs to be made is that
the nomcom as discretion not to publish names, for whatever reason.)

Thomas

---

From: Andrew Sullivan <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 2009 19:59:35 -0400

> the nomcom as discretion not to publish names, for whatever reason.)

The usual way to say that in English is "at its discretion".  Which
also carries the right connotation, I think.

A

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
[email-masked]
Shinkuro, Inc.