Subject: Resend - WG Last Call Issues

From: Avri Doria <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2003 17:56:26 +0900

The following is a list of the issues that were raised during the
Working Group Last Call 1 and resolutions.

Since the Nomcom document is all about the rules and the language
for their descriptions, we will have another 1 week last call on any of
the wording changes made because of the resolutions from this last call.
As soon as the next version of the draft is available, I will announce 
that
last call.

Thanks,

a.

----------

WGLC1-1: Sec 4 (8) Difficulty parsing the language.

Resolution:  Editorial change - new language to clarify

----------

WGLC1-2: Issue of whether a current IAB/IESG MUST resign
                 when appointed to another job

Resolution:  While there is an oral tradition recommending
                     against this,  there was no consensus for making
                     a rule against it.

                     Language in oral tradition clarified to explicitly
                     recommend against the practice.

History:  Resolution of previous discussion in point 4.3 of:
             
http://lists.elistx.com/archives/ietf-nomcom/200210/msg00002.html

----------

WGLC1-3: Sec 5 (8) Text should read that 'the prior year's chair
                     or the person sitting in his or her place'  may 
request a
                     recall of the current chair.

Resolution: Definition of Prior year's chair extended to include
                     person taking the prior year's chair's seat.

----------

WGLC1-3: Sec 5 (11) Term "IETF Community" is ambiguous

resolution: Term has been in document RFC for several versions
                    and last call is not the best time to define new 
language.
                    Issue not considered a show stopper by commenter.
                    No change to document.

WGLC1-5:Sec 5 (15) Sentence restructure requested: write
                    'candidate rejected by the confirming body' instead 
of
                     'rejected candidates'.
                    Redundancy in written rule is problematic.

Resolution: Editorial change - fix language.

----------

WGLC1-6:Sec 1. Language of when the draft takes effect very
                    unclear and not specific as to how it is approved.

Resolution: Sentence removed.

----------

WGLC1-7: Sec 3 (7-3) Language left in regarding Confirming
                    Bodies consulting with Nomcom despite consensus
                    against such language.

Resolution: As this was an oversight, language will be corrected
                     as suggested on the list.

                   "The confirming bodies review their respective 
candidates,
                    they may at their descretion communicate with the
                    nominating committee, and then consent to some, all, 
or
                    none of the candidates."

----------

WGLC1-8: Sec 4 (15) comment that 3 out of 5 still leaves the
                     possibility that inexperienced attendees will end
                     up on the nomcom and need to be brought up to
                     speed at the expense of the process.  A 
recommendation
                     was made that would extend the rule to at least 4 
of the
                     last 8 IETF meetings and add the requirements that 
the
                     first  attendance must be at least 3 years prior to 
the date
                     on which the solicitation for nominating.

Resolution: This issue and many different variants for allowing for more
                      experience and longevity in the organization were 
discussed
                      at length earlier on the list and in the face to 
face meeting
                      in Atlanta. The consensus after discussing many 
possibilities
                      was to extend the model to the proposed 3 out of 5 
model plus
                      the note about the expectation that volunteers be 
familiar with
                      the IETF and processes and procedures.

                      As the issue was discussed in detail and consensus 
was
                      reached, it will not be reopened at this time.

History:  The issues as discussed on the list were summed up in:
             
http://lists.elistx.com/archives/ietf-nomcom/200211/msg00007.html
             The discussion was then taken into IETF55 were there was a
             unanimous hum in favor of the 3/5 rule.  Subsequent to 
this, the hum
             was reported on the list and there were extensive 
discussions about
             the number of eligible candidates following the the 2/3 and 
3/5 rules
             as this had been brought up as a question during IETF55.
             These was consensus on the list for the change to the 3/5 
rule.  The
             change was made in draft-ietf-nomcom-rfc2727bis-03.txt, and 
was
             announced on the list in:
             
http://lists.elistx.com/archives/ietf-nomcom/200302/msg00000.html
             Until the last call comment, there was no further 
discussion of this
             issue.

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2003 11:50:28 +0200

I'm happy with all these choices.

    Brian

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Brian E Carpenter 
Distinguished Engineer, Internet Standards & Technology, IBM 

NEW ADDRESS <[email-masked]> PLEASE UPDATE ADDRESS BOOK

> Working Group Last Call 1 and resolutions.

<snip>