Subject: Re: WG Last Call

From: James M Galvin <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 02 Jul 2003 14:20:24 -0400 (Eastern Daylight Time)

Sorry to be so long in responding to this.  Speaking as editor:

On Sat, 28 Jun 2003, Brian E Carpenter wrote:

    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?

This text was present in RFC2727, the document currently being revised,
but none of the prior versions.

My recollection of the time is that the intent was to ensure a NOMCOM
could actually adopt a "waiting-for-final-approval" document as its
process if any revision "currently in progress" was completed.  However,
in retrospect, I think this is wrong.

I think the correct resolution for this issue is simply to remove the
sentence.  Unless there is an objection that is what I will do.

    >        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.

Oops, oversight by me.  I just missed a use of the word.  It has been
corrected by changing "consultation" to "communication."

Thanks for catching this.

Jim

---

From: Michael StJohns <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 02 Jul 2003 14:29:39 -0400

>corrected by changing "consultation" to "communication."

No... that's not the correct change.

 From the May 22 note::::

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

The CBs have their own roles and MUST NOT be overly influenced by the 
Nomcom.  So "in consultation with" needs to go.

Brian proposed some alternate text which I can live with:

>   If not all the candidates submitted to a confirming body are
>   rapidly confirmed, the confirming body continues to communicate
>   with the nominating committee both to understand the committee's
>   rationale for the slate and, if appropriate, to explain the reason
>   why all the candidates were not confirmed.
>
>   The confirming body may ask the nominating committee for additional
>   information about a nominee, or about the nominating committee's procedure,
>   to assist them in their deliberations. However, the confirming body
>   and the nominating committee must refrain from mutual communication
>   about availability, qualification or characteristics of other possible
>   candidates for the position.

>----------------------------------------------------------------
>To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription
>manager: <http://lists.elistx.com/subscribe>

---

From: James M Galvin <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 02 Jul 2003 14:52:55 -0400 (Eastern Daylight Time)

Speaking as editor:

On Thu, 26 Jun 2003, Scott Bradner wrote:

    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?

Here is my proposed change:

    4.8 The following rules apply to nominees who are currently sitting
      members of the IESG or IAB, and who are not sitting in an open
      position being filled by the nominating committee.

Comments?

Jim

---

From: James M Galvin <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 02 Jul 2003 15:10:02 -0400 (Eastern Daylight Time)

Speaking as editor:

The change to which you are referring was made in the body of that
particular rule.  What Brian just did was notice that the rule itself
was not changed.

The complete rule now says: (from Section 3, Rule 7)

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

           The sitting IAB members review the IESG candidates.

           The Internet Society Board of Trustees reviews the IAB
           candidates.

           The confirming bodies conduct their review using all
           information and any means acceptable to them, including but
           not limited to the supporting information provided by the
           nominating committee, information known personally to members
           of the confirming bodies and shared within the confirming
           body, the results of interactions within the confirming
           bodies, and the confirming bodies interpretation of what is
           in the best interests of the IETF community.

           If all of the candidates are confirmed, the job of the
           nominating committee with respect to those open positions is
           complete.

           If some or none of the candidates submitted to a confirming
           body are confirmed, the confirming body should communicate
           with the nominating committee both to explain the reason why
           all the candidates were not confirmed and to understand the
           nominating committee's rationale for its candidates.

           The confirming body may reject individual candidates, in
           which case the nominating committee must select alternate
           candidates for the rejected candidates.

           Any additional time required by the nominating committee
           should not exceed its maximum time allotment.

This is what I understood the desired change to be.

Jim

---

From: Michael StJohns <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 02 Jul 2003 16:02:22 -0400

*sigh*  The confirming bodies do NOT make their decisions "in communication 
with the nominating committee"  Delete that phrase from the first clause 
and make it read

"The confirming bodies review their respective candidates and consent to 
some, all, or none of the candidates."

Mike

---

From: James M Galvin <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 02 Jul 2003 16:14:43 -0400 (Eastern Daylight Time)

Speaking as editor:

On Wed, 2 Jul 2003, Michael StJohns wrote:

    *sigh* The confirming bodies do NOT make their decisions "in
    communication with the nominating committee" Delete that phrase from
    the first clause and make it read

But they do communicate.  They receive supporting documentation and they
are permitted to ask questions.  In fact, there is an expectation of
communication.

The "in communication with" was explicitly added to ensure that the
NOMCOM and the confirming body do not have a wall between them.  To
remove the phrase you suggest is, in my opinion as editor, not an
editorial change.

Jim

---

From: Michael StJohns <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 02 Jul 2003 16:46:26 -0400

Speaking as myself..

Yes the bodies do communicate, but they do not make their decisions in 
communication with the Nominating committee.  Being "in communication with" 
implies an immediacy and constancy that is not appropriate.  "communicates 
with" if there is an issue, a requirement for more information, or a 
rejection and at the need or request of the CB is appropriate - but its the 
CBs option (except of course for the rejection).

There is and should be no requirement for the CB to communicate with the 
nomcom unless the CB desires more information.  The nomcom provides the 
candidate, it does not then get to provide any more input unless the CB 
desires it.  The nomcom does not get to try and sway, influence, cajole or 
otherwise contaminate the independence of the CBs deliberations.

The nomcom sends the nomination and supporting documentation.  The 
confirming bodies review that, ask questions if necessary, and then make 
their decision based on what they know at that point... they don't have a 
phone line open, the nomcom doesn't get a vote in the CB 
deliberations.  There isn't even a requirement that the CB ask questions of 
the nomcom.

The rest of this is all spelled out in the paragraphs below that 
clause.  Either remove the clause, or use Brian's restatement.

---

From: Scott Bradner <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 02 Jul 2003 16:48:34 -0400 (EDT)

I agree with Mike

----

---

From: Michael StJohns <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 02 Jul 2003 16:46:26 -0400

Speaking as myself..

---

From: Donald Eastlake 3rd <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 02 Jul 2003 21:20:33 -0400 (EDT)

On Wed, 2 Jul 2003, Michael StJohns wrote:

> Date: Wed, 02 Jul 2003 16:46:26 -0400
> From: Michael StJohns <[email-masked]>
> Subject: Re: WG Last Call
> 
> Speaking as myself..
> 

I agree that "in communication" is a misleading description of the CB 
deliberations. But see below...

> otherwise contaminate the independence of the CBs deliberations.

I also agree that there is no reason for any requirement that the CB
communicate with the nomcom.  But I can't see any reason to stop the
nomcom, or any members thereof, or indeed any members of the IETF
community from saying pretty much anything they want to a CB or to any
member of the CB. Whatever benefit you see in the weird and unnatual
isolation of CBs escapes me. The members of the CB are leaders immersed
in the IETF community and all members of that community should feel free
to communicate to them, including opinions that are favorable or
unfavorable to the selection of individuals. The sort of draconian
restriction on freedom of speech you propose seems to me entirely
unjustified.

> deliberations.  There isn't even a requirement that the CB ask questions of 

I generally agree except that I see no reason why a week or a day or ten
minutes after their initial message to the CB, in the unlikely event the
nomcom wants to send one or more additional messages, there is no reason
to prohibit this.

Thanks,
Donald
======================================================================
 Donald E. Eastlake 3rd                       [email-masked]
 155 Beaver Street              +1-508-634-2066(h) +1-508-851-8280(w)
 Milford, MA 01757 USA                   [email-masked]

---

From: RJ Atkinson <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 02 Jul 2003 21:25:51 -0400

On Wednesday, Jul 2, 2003, at 16:48 America/Montreal, Scott Bradner 
> I agree with Mike

I agree with Mike as well.

Ran

---

From: "Lucy E. Lynch" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 03 Jul 2003 08:15:38 -0700 (PDT)

"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."

???

Lucy E. Lynch 				Academic User Services
Computing Center			University of Oregon
llynch  @darkwing.uoregon.edu		(541) 346-1774/Cell: 912-7998

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 03 Jul 2003 17:31:28 +0200

> I agree with Mike as well.

Me too, when I think about it

   Brian

---

From: "Joel M. Halpern" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 03 Jul 2003 11:37:12 -0400

Would it help any if "in communication with" were replaced with 
"communicating as necessary"?  There was concern in the working group that 
the existing text left the impression of a wall between the two bodies.

Yours,
Joel

---

From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 03 Jul 2003 18:41:01 +0200

> and then consent to some, all, or none of the candidates."

this text works for me....

---

From: James M Galvin <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 03 Jul 2003 17:06:24 -0400 (Eastern Daylight Time)

Speaking as editor:

If I correctly understand Mike's point, we need to separate the issue
of any communication between the NOMCOM and the confirming body from the
issue of the confirming body making its decision.

Presuming that's correct we also need to recall that it has been decided
by this group to explicitly indicate that the NOMCOM and the confirming
body may communicate.  So far we are intentionally leaving undefined the
extent of the boundaries of that communication.  The issue was focused
on ensuring that both bodies knew they were to permitted to communicate
during the confirming bodies decision process.  Of course we can choose
to change that but as editor it's not my place to make that change,
i.e., I do no believe I can simply drop the phrase.

With that mind, does the following phrasing address your concerns.

Change from:

To:

        3.  The confirming bodies review their respective candidates,
            communicate at their discretion with the nominating
            committee, and consent to some, all, or none of the
            candidates.

Thanks,

Jim

    Yes the bodies do communicate, but they do not make their decisions
    in communication with the Nominating committee.  Being "in
    communication with" implies an immediacy and constancy that is not
    appropriate.  "communicates with" if there is an issue, a
    requirement for more information, or a rejection and at the need or
    request of the CB is appropriate - but its the CBs option (except of
    course for the rejection).

    The nomcom sends the nomination and supporting documentation.  The
    confirming bodies review that, ask questions if necessary, and then
    make their decision based on what they know at that point... they
    don't have a phone line open, the nomcom doesn't get a vote in the
    CB deliberations.  There isn't even a requirement that the CB ask
    questions of the nomcom.

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 04 Jul 2003 11:34:57 +0200

> this text works for me....

For me too.

   Brian