Subject: Re: WG Last Call

From: Scott Bradner <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2003 10:20:28 -0400 (EDT)

looks generally good to me but some comments/suggestions

Scott

------------
sec 4
   8.  The following rules apply if a candidate to be submitted to a  
       confirming body is a sitting member of the IESG, IAB, or ISOC
       Board of Trustees, and the candidate is not serving in an open
       position being filled by the nominating committee.

I do not think the above is all that easily parseable - I think what is
being said is that the following rules apply if an continuing IAB member is
being nominated for an IESG seat or if a continuing IESG member is being
nominated for a different IESG seat or for a IAB seat.  - if so, can we say
that? if not, can we say what is actually meant?

       The confirmation of a candidate to an open position does not  
       automatically create a vacancy in the IESG or IAB position
       currently occupied by the candidate.  The mid-term vacancy can
       not exist until, first, the candidate formally resigns from the  
       current position 

This text does not say that the individual MUST resign their "old"
position.  The assumption is clearly in this and other sections but the doc
does not clearly make the resignation a requirement.  

I have not been able to find where it says that the same person can not be
both on the IAB and IESG (other than some confusing text under Oral
Tradition:
   2.  No person should ever be nominated to serve on both the IESG and
       the IAB concurrently; this does not apply to the IETF Chair who
       serves on both bodies by definition.
this text could mean that I can not nominate an individual and say "this
person should be an AD and an IAB member at the same time" or it could mean
that a person should not be on both - but it is not clear - if it means the
latter it should just say that "other than the IAB chair, no individual may
service simultaneously on the IESG and IAB" 

	Nor do I see anyplace that says that an individual can not fill two
IESG seats at the same time (selected seats rather than the IPng or SUB-IP
type of temporary seats) - e.g. a nomcom could decide to select a
continuing AD for an open seat then the person does not resign from the old
seat.

sec 5
   8.   Only the prior year's Chair may request the recall of the       
        current Chair.

but the last year's chair is not always on the nomcom (see 4.11) - maybe
this needs to be 'the prior year's chair or the person sitting in his or
her place'

sec 5
   11.  Any member of the IETF community may nominate any member of the
        IETF community for any open position, whose eligibility to serve
        will be confirmed by the nominating committee.

why is the nominee limited to "the IETF community" (and what does that mean
anyway?

sec 5 - 15
        Rejected nominees who consented to their nomination must be
        notified prior to announcing the confirmed candidates.  Rejected
        candidates must be notified prior to announcing the confirmed
        candidates.

does the second part of this mean 'candidates rejected by the confirming
body'?  if so - can it say that?

---

From: James M Galvin <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2003 11:10:22 -0400 (Eastern Daylight Time)

Speaking as Editor:

On Thu, 26 Jun 2003, Scott Bradner wrote:

    sec 4

You are correct.  I will find some alternate words and run it through
the list here.

           The confirmation of a candidate to an open position does not
           automatically create a vacancy in the IESG or IAB position
           currently occupied by the candidate.  The mid-term vacancy
           can not exist until, first, the candidate formally resigns
           from the current position

    This text does not say that the individual MUST resign their "old"
    position.  The assumption is clearly in this and other sections but
    the doc does not clearly make the resignation a requirement.

You are correct and that is intentional.  There has been no consensus
suggesting that a person can not serve in two roles at the same time.
Many believe the NOMCOM would never nominate someone for two roles, but
"many" has not been determined to be consensus.  That is why the
"restriction" is only an "oral tradition" and the rest of the document
is vague and ambiguous.

    (other than some confusing text under Oral Tradition:
       2.  No person should ever be nominated to serve on both the IESG and
           the IAB concurrently; this does not apply to the IETF Chair who
           serves on both bodies by definition.

Yes, I see your point.  I meant to say the latter, more precisely:

        2. No person should serve on the IESG and IAB simultaneously,
           except the IETF Chair who serves on both bodies by
           definition.

And I will make the change as I have indicated.

    sec 5

It would probably be better to add some words in 4.11 that say that
the title "Prior Year's Chair" refers to the individual serving in that
role for the NOMCOM.  That would ensure it applies throughout the
document.

    sec 5

The nominees are limited to the IETF community so that its leaders are
selected from within itself.

The term "IETF community" is intentionally undefined.

    sec 5 - 15

I believe that with a strict interpretation of the rules as documented
what you say would be correct.  However, a looser interpretation would
permit the NOMCOM to reject a candidate, also.

I am not opposed to making this change but I would prefer to hear if
others also believe it is necessary or good.

Jim

---

From: Scott Bradner <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2003 11:19:46 -0400 (EDT)

> "restriction" is only an "oral tradition" and the rest of the document

maybe it would be better to say just that rather than just imply it by
only having the oral tradition (being direct is not a fault :-) )

> The term "IETF community" is intentionally undefined.

I'm not sure of the value of the use of the term if its intentionally
undefined - at one extreme the "IETF community" is anyone who knows
enough to make a nomination (in which case the use of the term does
not help) and the other is that the IETF community" is limited in 
some other way, but that other way is not defined the use of the term does
not help

> others also believe it is necessary or good.

the reason it cought my eye is that it seems to be saying the same thing
twice (redundancy is not your friend :-) ) - maybe it could be redone
to say "Rejected nominees who consented to their nomination and 
rejected candidates must be notified prior to announcing the confirmed
candidates."  

(but its not all that clear to me the difference between a consenting 
nominee and a candidate)

Scott

---

From: James M Galvin <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2003 13:43:37 -0400 (Eastern Daylight Time)

Speaking as editor:

Sure, makes sense.  If no one objects I consider it an editorial change
so I'll do that.

I went back and looked to confirm that the term "IETF community" has
been used since the first NOMCOM RFC, rfc2027.  There have been 1 or 2
additional uses of the term in each RFC and even in this draft.

Based on that I believe that finding another term or even defining this
term (we know where that discussion is going to take us :) is a new
issue.  Since we are now in last call on this document unless you
consider the issue a show-stopper I would suggest saving this issue for
the next iteration of the document.

    >             candidates must be notified prior to announcing the confirmed

    the reason it cought my eye is that it seems to be saying the same
    thing twice (redundancy is not your friend :-) ) - maybe it could be
    redone to say "Rejected nominees who consented to their nomination
    and rejected candidates must be notified prior to announcing the
    confirmed candidates."

The redundancy I can fix and will do so.

Only the NOMCOM knows, and that is the point.

Jim

---

From: Scott Bradner <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2003 13:45:13 -0400 (EDT)

> Since we are now in last call on this document unless you
> consider the issue a show-stopper 

I do not

> Only the NOMCOM knows, and that is the point.

I was speaking definitionally

Scott

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 28 Jun 2003 21:25:14 +0200

In the Introduction, we have 

>    However, these procedures are subject to change and such
>    change takes effect immediately upon its approval, regardless of
>    whether this document has yet been revised.

This is no good as it stands, since it doesn't define whose approval
is needed. Is it the IESG's? Is it the ISOC Board's?

>        3.  The confirming bodies review their respective candidates and,
>            in consultation with the nominating committee, consent to
>            some, all, or none of the candidates.

Sigh. I thought we had got rid of this usage of "consultation"
which Mike St Johns convincingly argued is incorrect, and replaced
it with a neutral word such as "communication." True, there was no
outpouring of support for this change, but there was no objection either,
and Mike is correct that this process is *not* consultative.

James M Galvin wrote:
...
> others also believe it is necessary or good.

Logically, the Nomcom chooses the list of candidates, so only the CB
can reject them. So I think the change is logically unnecessary, but
does no harm.

   Brian