Subject: SUMMARY: archiving of NOMCOM information

From: James M Galvin <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2002 10:58:17 -0500 (EST)

SPEAKING AS EDITOR:

A number of good questions have been asked about this practice.  I think
the most important question is:

    Why archive the NOMCOM information?

1. If there are legal reasons we need to make sure we know what those
   are and we should document them.  It was suggested we should inquire
   of our legal counsel as to whether there are requirements or
   precedents that suggest we should retain data and if so what data
   should be retained.

2. Another reason that was suggested is to ensure the NOMCOM has a
   starting point should it be necessary for them to fill a mid-term
   vacancy.

I believe there is agreement on point 2 above.  With that in mind and
incorporating other discussion regarding controlling access to the
"archived data" I would propose the following:

    PROPOSED CONSENSUS: The NOMCOM Chair and one or more NOMCOM voting
    members should maintain an archive of the information and
    deliberations of the NOMCOM for their term of service.  The archive
    can be used if the NOMCOM is called upon to fill a mid-term vacancy.
    At the end of the term of service all information is to be
    destroyed.

If you disagree with the PROPOSED CONSENSUS please reply to the list.
If you agree do nothing.  Note that a future message will propose actual
and specific textual changes to the document.

With respect to point 1 above, do folks want to frame a question to be
presented to our legal counsel for an opinion?  If you want to do this
please reply to the list.  If not, do nothing.

Jim

---

From: John Morris <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2002 16:07:58 -0500

I think the "proposed consensus" language does not actually 
accomplish what is intended.  I realize that different (and perhaps 
clearer) language will be used in the actual revision to 2727, but it 
seems desirable to be clear at this stage about what consensus might 

>     At the end of the term of service all information is to be

The problem is with the phrase "term of service."  The current 2727 
does not clearly define the "term of service" of a NOMCOM member. 
The closest it comes to stating a term of service is in part (2) of 
Section 2, which states:

>>    (2)  The annual selection and confirmation process is expected to be
>>         completed within 3 months.
>>
>>       The annual selection and confirmation process is expected to be
>>       completed one month prior to the friday of the week before the
>>       First IETF.  It is expected to begin 4 months prior to the Friday
>>       of the week before the First IETF.
>>

Thus suggests that the NOMCOM's "term of service" runs from about 
four months prior to the First IETF, and ends about one month prior. 
But the whole point of keeping an archive is to keep documents 
available for a period _after_ the end of the NOMCOM's normal work.

There are two simple solutions to the problem:  Either the revised 
document can define "term of service" to extend beyond the normal 
work period of the NOMCOM, or the PROPOSED CONSENSUS can be revised 
to read something like:

     PROPOSED CONSENSUS: The NOMCOM Chair and one or more NOMCOM voting
     members should maintain an archive of the information and
     deliberations of the NOMCOM UNTIL THE NEXT NOMCOM IS CREATED. The archive
     can be used if the NOMCOM is called upon to fill AN INTERIM vacancy.
     UPON THE CREATION OF A NEW NONCOM ANY ARCHIVES OF THE PRIOR NONCOM
     SHALL BE DESTROYED.

I think this more clearly states what has been discussed, and more 
clearly suggests the actually changes to be made to 2727.

John

--------------------------------------------------
John Morris // CDT // http://www.cdt.org/standards
--------------------------------------------------