Subject: [ietf-nomcom] Clarifying NomCom eligibility of IETF leadership

From: Barry Leiba <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2012 18:12:55 -0400

I intend to submit the following I-D on Monday, when the I-D embargo lifts.

-----------------------------------
Title: Update to RFC 3777 to Clarify Nominating Committee
Eligibility of IETF Leadership

RFC 3777 specifies that "sitting members" of the IAB and IESG
"may not volunteer to serve on the nominating committee".
Since that document was written the IAOC was formed, and that
body is not covered by RFC 3777.  There is also uncertainty about
whether ex-officio members and liaisons are included as "sitting
members".  This document clarifies those situations.

The following paragraph replaces RFC 3777, Section 4, paragraph 15
in its entirety.

15.  Members of the Internet Society Board of Trustees and sitting
members of the IAB, the IESG, and the IAOC, including members
in ex-officio and liaison positions, may not volunteer to serve on the
nominating committee.
-----------------------------------

I'm looking for early comments here, before I post the I-D and bring it to
[email-masked].  I will particularly note that I am *ONLY* interested in
dealing with THIS ONE ISSUE.  I think this is straightforward and
represents the intent of IETF 3777, and that it's only a clarification.  I
will NOT entertain comments that other things in 3777 should be addressed
here.

Are there any objections to this clarification?  Does anyone think it
should be done differently?

Barry

---

From: Spencer Dawkins <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2012 17:34:08 -0500

> I intend to submit the following I-D on Monday, when the I-D embargo lifts.

Without reference to whether I think this is a good idea or not, I 
wonder "why liaisons?", and "what about people like secretaries, 
scribes, etc?".

The second could be outside the scope that you set, but explaining the 
rationale for this change could be helpful.

Thanks,

Spencer

> _______________________________________________
> ietf-nomcom mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-nomcom
>

---

From: Barry Leiba <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2012 18:54:31 -0400

> Without reference to whether I think this is a good idea or not, I wonder
> "why liaisons?", and "what about people like secretaries, scribes, etc?".
>

Thanks for the comment, and you're certainly right about explaining the
rationale.

I believe the intent of paragraph 15 is to say, basically, "The current
IETF leadership is ineligible to be on the NomCom."  Liaisons might not
belong there -- some of them are liaisons across the leadership
organizations, so they're covered anyway.  The others -- liaisons from RFC
Editor, IANA, and ISOC -- arguably *should* be eligible.  Scribes, as well,
should probably be eligible.  The IAB Executive Director is listed as an
ex-officio positions, so it's covered.  Nothing so far bars the
Secretariat, though I can't imagine any of them volunteering.  Should they
be added to the list?

Barry

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2012 19:29:59 -0400

--On Wednesday, July 25, 2012 17:34 -0500 Spencer Dawkins
<[email-masked]> wrote:

>> 15.  Members of the Internet Society Board of Trustees and
>> sitting members of the IAB, the IESG, and the IAOC, including
>> members in ex-officio and liaison positions, may not
>> volunteer to serve on the nominating committee.
> 
> Without reference to whether I think this is a good idea or
> not, I wonder "why liaisons?", and "what about people like
> secretaries, scribes, etc?".

Barry,

Let me agree with Spencer and carry that thought at bit further.
IMO, the more people there are on the Nomcom who have a clue
about what goes on in the IETF leadership -- what the positions
and expectations actually are and how things work as well as how
individuals perform -- the better off we are.  Maybe others
disagree with that view but, to the degree that the position is
reasonable, we should be designing things to exclude as few
people as possible.  

Working backwards from that principle, we exclude voting members
of the IESG and IAB because they may be a little bit too
affected by Nomcom decisions, because the Nomcom is replacing
half of their positions anyway, and, in the IAB's case, because
it is a confirming body.  But the liaisons don't participate in
any of that -- in my experience, the IAB excludes them from
meetings and discussions associated with candidates.
Extrapolating to the IAOC, people appointed by Nomcom or by the
IAB or IESG should probably be excluded, but it is less clear to
me that liaisons and people appointed by, e.g., the ISOC BoT
should be excluded.  The ISOC BoT probably has to be excluded on
the grounds that they are a confirming body.  

Conversely, I wonder whether people who are employees of the
IETF, the Secretariat, and/or contractors to the IASA ought to
be excluded on the grounds of a possible financial interest in
the people the Nomcom appoints.  I think the answer is probably
"no, at least most of them are ok", but it deserves
consideration.  In particular, should folks like the IAD, RSE,
IAB Exec Dir, and IETF Exec Dir be Nomcom-eligible if they are
not excluded by other rules?

Net, I would really encourage you to draw the exclusion
perimeter as narrowly as possible consistent with actual
conflicts of roles so as to increase, however slightly, the
likelihood of having high-clue people on the Nomcom.

Finally, please beware of unintended side-effects.  The
"Nomcom-eligible" rule in 3777 had the effect of prohibiting
sitting members of the IESG and IAB from participating in
recalls.  Perhaps that is what we want, although I don't think
so.  But, IIR, the issue wasn't noticed sufficiently that the
community could have a serious conversation about the tradeoffs.
If the effect of a change to 3777 is to move recalls even
further away from "feasible mechanism and realistic control", we
shouldn't do that by accident.    I would therefore argue that
your draft should either address the recall issue as a tradeoff
or should change the language of 3777 so that eligibility for
recall participation includes those who are not Nomcom-eligible
by virtue of the positions they hold but who would be eligible
if they did not hold those positions.

    john

---

From: Jim Galvin <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2012 19:40:12 -0400

-- On July 25, 2012 6:12:55 PM -0400 Barry Leiba 
<[email-masked]> wrote regarding [ietf-nomcom] Clarifying 
NomCom eligibility of IETF leadership --

> "may not volunteer to serve on the nominating committee".Since that
> document was written the IAOC was formed, and that
> Are there any objections to this clarification?  Does anyone think
> it should be done differently?

I have no issue with the inclusion of the IAOC in the list, 
conceptually.  I would say that's exactly the right thing.  There is at 
least one other place where the "list" should be amended, the 
definition of a "sitting member" in Section 2.  I don't recall offhand 
if there are other places this change should be made.

Perhaps it might be better to provide a clarifying principle rather 
than a change to this one specific paragraph.  I'm suggesting something 
like the following:

The IAOC is to be included in any list in the document that includes 
all of the ISOC Board, IESG, and the IAB.

More generally, should we refer to the IASA?  I don't think so but for 
completeness I thought it was worth mentioning.

Even more generally, should refer to any recognized body of the IETF 
defined today or that may come in to existence in the future?  Okay, so 
maybe this is going too far.  :-)

However, I do not agree that ex-officio and liaison positions should be 
excluded, i.e., included in your list.

Even if you want to exclude them, I would say the right way to make 
this change is to alter the definition of "sitting member", which I 
presume is the source of the perceived ambiguity.

The definitions in Section 2 define "sitting member" as follows.

    sitting member: A person who is currently serving a term of
    membership in the IESG, IAB or ISOC Board of Trustees.

I concede that I can see where someone could interpret that either way 
with respect to liaisons and ex-officio positions.  To avoid this 
ambiguity I would suggest adding one of the following two phrases to 
the end of that definition:

a. "...Trustees, excluding persons serving in a liaison or ex-officio 
role that is not otherwise listed."

b. "...Trustees, including persons serving in a liaison or ex-officio 
role."

In general, I wouldn't want to exclude liaisons and ex-officio 
positions, unless they are already covered by some other rule.  For 
example, the IESG liaison to the IAB should be excluded but then 
they're already excluded because they are on the IESG.  I would not 
however exclude the IRTF or RFC Editor liaisons.

Jim

---

From: Barry Leiba <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2012 20:14:32 -0400

I agree with John's general statement that we should exclude as few
people as necessary to do what we intend, and that we should think
about who we're excluding.

We can't fix this by changing the definition of "sitting member",
rather than Section 4, paragraph 15: "sitting member" is used in a
number of places in the document to clearly identify NomCom-appointed
positions.  For instance, look at the definition of "Member Recall",
and check Section 3, bullets 3, 4, 7, and 8.

The questions that John and Jim bring up are key, so:

- I think it's clearly in the intent of 3777 to exclude the actual
current leadership.

- John quibbles about the IAOC members who were not appointed by the
NomCom.  I think that doesn't fly: all voting members of the IAOC are
part of the current IETF leadership, regardless of who appointed them.
 And I don't think it's reasonable, according to how we mean to do
things, to have a sitting member of the IAOC be on the body that
appoints another member to the IAOC.

- There seems to be consensus, at least of those who've commented so
far, that liaisons shouldn't be excluded.

- As far as I can tell, the positions that remain in question are the
ex-officio ones that aren't otherwise excluded: the IAD, the IRTF
Chair and the IAB Executive Director.  Those are all covered by the
"ex-officio" clause.  Jim would prefer not to exclude these, while I
think it's the intent of 3777 to do so.

- There remains the question of whether people from the Secretariat,
the RFC Editor, and IANA should be excluded.  All have "bosses" in
NomCom-appointed positions, and would, I think, have a significant
conflict of interest in serving.

- I've gotten separate input suggesting that paragraph 15 be clear
that we're talking about voting members of the NomCom, because there
are liaisons appointed from sitting members of these groups.  I don't
think that's necessary -- I think it's already clear from the overall
context -- but if others think we should say, I'll do so.

Updating my proposal accordingly:

15.  Members of the Internet Society Board of Trustees and sitting
members of the IAB, the IESG, and the IAOC, including members
in ex-officio positions, and not including liaisons, may not volunteer
to serve on the nominating committee.  People serving in the
Secretariat, the RFC Editor, and IANA may not volunteer to
serve on the nominating committee.
-----------------------------------

Barry

---

From: Henk Uijterwaal <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2012 10:20:19 +0200

I agree with the proposal.

> - I think it's clearly in the intent of 3777 to exclude the actual

In order to make this future-proof, wouldn't it be better to say that
anybody currently serving on a body for which the Nomcom appoints its
members, is not eligible to serve on the Nomcom, rather than try to
specify this in detail.  (Or if you want to add the detail, at least
include the general principle).

> far, that liaisons shouldn't be excluded.

Agree.

> conflict of interest in serving.

I'd extend this to contractors and the like, for example the legal
council to the IAOC, people hired by the IAB/IESG to investigate a
problem, etc.

> serve on the nominating committee.

15. As a general principle, people currently serving on any of the
    bodies for which the NOMCOM appoints its members, may not serve
    on the NOMCOM, regardless of who appointed them to this body. Also
    excluded from serving are people with a employer-employee relation,
    or another business relation to any of those bodies.

    At the time of writing, this means that Members of the ISOC BoT,
    sitting members of the IAB, IESG and IAOC (including members in
    ex-officio positions, but excluding liaisons), people serving
    in the secretariat, IANA, the RFC-editor and all contractors may
    not volunteer.

Henk

-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Henk Uijterwaal                           Email: henk(at)uijterwaal.nl
                                          http://www.uijterwaal.nl
                                          Phone: +31.6.55861746
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Read my blog at http://www.uijterwaal.nl/henks_hands.html

---

From: Robert Elz <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2012 16:20:36 +0700 (ICT)

Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2012 10:20:19 +0200
    From: Henk Uijterwaal <[email-masked]>
    To: [email-masked]

  | 15. As a general principle, people currently serving on any of the
  |     bodies for which the NOMCOM appoints its members, may not serve
  |     on the NOMCOM, regardless of who appointed them to this body. Also
  |     excluded from serving are people with a employer-employee relation,
  |     or another business relation to any of those bodies.

I know it isn't what you intended, but that language could be read
as implying that anyone who supplies routers (or any other network,
or other, service) used by the IAB/IAOC/...  or the secretariat, or
rfc-editor (etc), and perhaps anyone who works at a hotel where an
IETF meeting is to be held, or maybe even for the chain that owns
the hotel, (and lots more people) are excluded.

Don't try and be too general and all encompassing, and resist the
temptation to solve problems that don't actually exist.

I suspect that the langaue proposed to which you were reacting
is closer to what would be wanted - except it is unnecessarily
wacky to say that classes of people "may not volunteer to serve"
when what it really means is "are not eligible to be a voting member of".

kre

---

From: "Bert Wijnen (IETF)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2012 11:42:25 +0200

Probably s/serving/serving as voting members or chair/ ??

otherwise, it might be ambiguous as to liaisons from those
other bodies. They do "serve" on the nomcom, although in
another (well-)defined role.

Bert

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2012 08:01:44 -0400

--On Wednesday, July 25, 2012 20:14 -0400 Barry Leiba
<[email-masked]> wrote:

> I agree with John's general statement that we should exclude
> as few people as necessary to do what we intend, and that we
> should think about who we're excluding.
> 
> We can't fix this by changing the definition of "sitting
> member", rather than Section 4, paragraph 15: "sitting member"
> is used in a number of places in the document to clearly
> identify NomCom-appointed positions.  For instance, look at
> the definition of "Member Recall", and check Section 3,
> bullets 3, 4, 7, and 8.
> 
> - I think it's clearly in the intent of 3777 to exclude the
> actual current leadership.
> 
> - John quibbles about the IAOC members who were not appointed
> by the NomCom.  I think that doesn't fly: all voting members
> of the IAOC are part of the current IETF leadership,
> regardless of who appointed them.  And I don't think it's
> reasonable, according to how we mean to do things, to have a
> sitting member of the IAOC be on the body that appoints
> another member to the IAOC.

I don't have any problem with that exclusion -- I just thought
it was important that we ask the question about what we want.

>...
> - As far as I can tell, the positions that remain in question
> are the ex-officio ones that aren't otherwise excluded: the
> IAD, the IRTF Chair and the IAB Executive Director.  Those are
> all covered by the "ex-officio" clause.  Jim would prefer not
> to exclude these, while I think it's the intent of 3777 to do
> so.

Unless our goal is to minimize the potential for clues on the
Nomcom, the question I would ask is whether there is a
compelling reason to exclude them.  If we are going to revise
3777, I think its original intent is less interesting than the
question of what best serves the community's needs today.  If we
do want to be paranoid about this and/or minimize clues, then we
should really exclude WG Chairs since Nomcom selections of IESG
members have a fairly direct effect on them.

> - There remains the question of whether people from the
> Secretariat, the RFC Editor, and IANA should be excluded.  All
> have "bosses" in NomCom-appointed positions, and would, I
> think, have a significant conflict of interest in serving.

So do WG Chairs and Secretaries, particularly if we have any
suspicions that IESG members might be unduly biased for or
against making appointments from their own companies.

> - I've gotten separate input suggesting that paragraph 15 be
> clear that we're talking about voting members of the NomCom,
> because there are liaisons appointed from sitting members of
> these groups.  I don't think that's necessary -- I think it's
> already clear from the overall context -- but if others think
> we should say, I'll do so.

I think it is clear in the existing documents.  Certainly I'm
not aware of any question about it in the last eight years.

>...

best,
   john

---

From: Jim Galvin <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2012 08:20:49 -0400

So I've now come around to your intent and agree with it.

I have included some comments on the proposed words inline below.

-- On July 25, 2012 8:14:32 PM -0400 Barry Leiba 
<[email-masked]> wrote regarding Re: [ietf-nomcom] Clarifying 
NomCom eligibility of IETF leadership --

> serve on the nominating committee.

First a more substantive comment.  I think we should include an 
explanatory paragraph that explicitly clears up the ambiguity of 
liaisons that are also members of bodies we want to exclude.  While 
it's a detail as along as we're making a change we might as well be 
complete.  So, I suggest adding the following:

    It is the intent of this rule that the exclusion list be applied
    first and be given priority over the inclusion list.  For example, a
    person who is a liaison from one body to another body would be
    excluded from volunteering.

Second an important style comment.  The original document is written 
such that each rule is a single sentence.  While I acknowledge there 
are two rules with a second sentence I would argue those are 
explanatory and not an integral part of the rule.

I propose the following editorial change:

15. Members of the Internet Society Board of Trustees; sitting members 
of the IAB, the IESG, and the IAOC; people serving in the Secretariat, 
the RFC Editor, and the IANA; and in all cases people serving in 
ex-officio positions but not including liaisons may not volunteer to 
serve on the nominating committee.

Jim

---

From: "Fred Baker (fred)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2012 12:35:11 +0000

It should also discuss the RSOC, which is an activity of the IAB. I suspect that you could generalize this discussion to include all such boards.

On Jul 25, 2012, at 3:12 PM, Barry Leiba wrote:

I'm looking for early comments here, before I post the I-D and bring it to [email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>.  I will particularly note that I am *ONLY* interested in dealing with THIS ONE ISSUE.  I think this is straightforward and represents the intent of IETF 3777, and that it's only a clarification.  I will NOT entertain comments that other things in 3777 should be addressed here.

Are there any objections to this clarification?  Does anyone think it should be done differently?

Barry
_______________________________________________
ietf-nomcom mailing list
[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-nomcom

----------------------------------------------------
The ignorance of how to use new knowledge stockpiles exponentially.
   - Marshall McLuhan

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2012 09:11:43 -0400

--On Thursday, July 26, 2012 12:35 +0000 "Fred Baker (fred)"
<[email-masked]> wrote:

> It should also discuss the RSOC, which is an activity of the
> IAB. I suspect that you could generalize this discussion to
> include all such boards.

Indeed.  With the IAB's relatively new "Program" model, there
are a number of subsidiary groups that could be discussed.  The
discussion should probably be generic because the IAB can create
such groups at will.  The RSOC is different from the others
because it is institutionalized (in RFC 6635) but there is no
particular reason why others couldn't be similarly established
in the future.  

I wonder whether such groups are, wrt the Nomcom, really
different from IETF Area or topic-based Directorates,  the WG
Chairs as a group, or the members of various management and
oversight committees (e.g., the RFC Editor and IANA ones).  Most
of the members of the latter are excluded by other rules, but
perhaps a few are not.

Again, I think the bottom line is that, if we are looking for a
way to see how many people we can exclude, there is no shortage
of opportunities.  One could even make a case for excluding
former IAB and IESG members.  If, on the other hand, our goals
include a broad and clueful a Nomcom pool as possible, we should
exclude only those people/roles for which there is a compelling
case for exclusion, not simply membership in some body for which
a tenuous claim of improper influence could be made.  

Other than having a strong preference for a Nomcom whose members
have clues, I'm not suggesting that I know exactly where to draw
the line, only that we be really careful about exclusions.

    john

---

From: "Eggert, Lars" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2012 15:56:50 +0000

Hi,

a lot of good points on this thread. I'm leaning towards agreeing with those that want to maximize inclusiveness and participation in the NomCom. Let me throw out a strawman proposal to see what people think:

"If you are currently serving in a NomCom-appointed position, you are not eligible to serve on the NomCom."

Everyone else that is otherwise eligible can serve. This rule obviously allows ex officio members, IAB functions, liaisons and others to serve. (Full disclosure: I would be affected by this rule.) 

Lars

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2012 12:24:46 -0400

--On Thursday, July 26, 2012 15:56 +0000 "Eggert, Lars"
<[email-masked]> wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> a lot of good points on this thread. I'm leaning towards
> agreeing with those that want to maximize inclusiveness and
> participation in the NomCom. Let me throw out a strawman
> proposal to see what people think:
> 
> "If you are currently serving in a NomCom-appointed position,
> you are not eligible to serve on the NomCom."
> 
> Everyone else that is otherwise eligible can serve. This rule
> obviously allows ex officio members, IAB functions, liaisons
> and others to serve. (Full disclosure: I would be affected by
> this rule.) 

Lars, my instinct would be to extend that to include "serving as
part of a group that has confirmation responsibility for Nomcom
appointees".  The confirmation process is intended to acts as a
check against Nomcoms that have missed important information or
otherwise gone off the rails.  Overlapping membership (in
addition to the one IAB->Nomcom liaison) would weaken that
check.  A confirming body restriction would eliminate members of
the ISOC BoT (the IETF-appointed Board Members might meet the
attendance requirements as would the ISOC President/CEO).  If we
are clear that "IAB as confirming body" is different from "IAB
members", it wouldn't exclude any IAB participants not excluded
by your rule other than, depending on current IAB practice, the
Exec Dir.  

Otherwise, I like the idea, both because it seems minimally
exclusive and because it avoids our having to iterate through
organizations and their membership categories.

   john

---

From: "Fred Baker (fred)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2012 16:50:31 +0000

On Jul 26, 2012, at 6:11 AM, John C Klensin wrote:

> of opportunities. 

I don't take the objective as being that; I see it as making sure that the I* bodies are not only not self-instantiating, but are seen as non-self-instantiating. Whether or not someone THINKS I shouldn't be on the nomcom, I have not volunteered for the nomcom since 1996, and the reason is that *I* don't think a person in my position (take your pick of the ones I have had) should be on the nomcom except as a liaison. But if we are agreeing together to such viewpoints and documenting them, this might be one to mention.

If you want to take the IAB programs as "directorates", works for me. I might feel more free to volunteer.

---

From: "Eggert, Lars" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2012 16:50:05 +0000

Hi,

On Jul 26, 2012, at 9:24, John C Klensin <[email-masked]> wrote:
> appointees".

it's a good clarification. But it doesn't really change the criteria itself, does it? At least for the IAB, ex officio members and liaisons are not part of IAB "executive sessions", where e.g. the NomCom confirmation or the selection of the IAB chair are handled. (I just want to make sure that I understand you correctly.)

>  The confirmation process is intended to acts as a

Yes, that makes sense. 

The exec director is also an ex officio member, like the IRTF chair, and those are the only two such members. Both of us are not present during executive sessions.

Lars

---

From: "Fred Baker (fred)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2012 16:51:10 +0000

> "If you are currently serving in a NomCom-appointed position, you are not eligible to serve on the NomCom."

That might be a good rule.

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2012 13:22:05 -0400

--On Thursday, July 26, 2012 16:50 +0000 "Fred Baker (fred)"
<[email-masked]> wrote:

>> Again, I think the bottom line is that, if we are looking for
>> a way to see how many people we can exclude, there is no
>> shortage of opportunities. 
> 
> I don't take the objective as being that; I see it as making
> sure that the I* bodies are not only not self-instantiating,
> but are seen as non-self-instantiating. Whether or not someone
> THINKS I shouldn't be on the nomcom, I have not volunteered
> for the nomcom since 1996, and the reason is that *I* don't
> think a person in my position (take your pick of the ones I
> have had) should be on the nomcom except as a liaison. But if
> we are agreeing together to such viewpoints and documenting
> them, this might be one to mention.

Indeed, that is a different, and IMO reasonable, interpretation
about the reason for the rule.  Personally, I see the tradeoffs
as favoring "broader pool and more clue on the Nomcom" over
extra barriers against self-instantiating bodies (I also think
that, if we were really against self-perpetuating bodies, we
would have imposed term limits, or at least different
presumptions about returning candidates, a long time ago).

But, if your view of the intent correctly reflects that of the
community, then we should bar anyone who has served on the IAB,
IESG, and maybe IAOC  --certainly in a voting position and maybe
in any position-- from serving on the Nomcom for at least a few
years after stepping down.  As far as I know, that has never
been proposed... which doesn't mean it is a bad idea.

> If you want to take the IAB programs as "directorates", works
> for me. I might feel more free to volunteer.

Since the IAB retains final authority and responsibility for the
activities of all IAB programs and non-IAB members of those
programs typically serve at the IAB's pleasure (even when they
nominally have terms), I think that analogy is pretty
reasonable.  Again, the RSOC is a little more "solid" than most
of the other programs because RFC 6635 creates it and more or
less defines its membership a specific role but, at least IMO,
the difference is not fundamental.

On the other hand, if one wanted to avoid the appearance of the
IAB or IESG being self-instantiating or self-perpetuating, one
might want to exclude Program members and Directorate Members
because they are extensions of and largely appointed by IAB and
IESG members.

 best,
    john

---

From: Russ Housley <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2012 14:01:44 -0400

Several IAOC voting members are not selected my NomCom.  In my view, none of the voting IAOC members should be NomCom members.

Russ

---

From: "Eggert, Lars" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2012 18:11:29 +0000

> Several IAOC voting members are not selected my NomCom.  In my view, none of the voting IAOC members should be NomCom members.

Good point.

How about: ""If you are currently serving in a NomCom-appointed position or have voting rights in the leadership body you serve on, you are not eligible to serve on the NomCom."

Lars

---

From: "Eggert, Lars" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2012 18:21:23 +0000

On Jul 26, 2012, at 11:11, "Eggert, Lars" <[email-masked]> wrote:
> How about: "If you are currently serving in a NomCom-appointed position or have voting rights in the leadership body you serve on, you are not eligible to serve on the NomCom."

"leadership body" is probably too loosely defined. Retrying:

"If you are currently serving in a NomCom-appointed position or have voting rights in an IETF leadership body that has other NomCom-appointed members, you are not eligible to serve on the NomCom."

Lars

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2012 15:10:50 -0400

--On Thursday, July 26, 2012 18:21 +0000 "Eggert, Lars"
<[email-masked]> wrote:

>> How about: "If you are currently serving in a
>> NomCom-appointed position or have voting rights in the
>> leadership body you serve on, you are not eligible to serve
>> on the NomCom."
> 
> "If you are currently serving in a NomCom-appointed position
> or have voting rights in an IETF leadership body that has
> other NomCom-appointed members, you are not eligible to serve
> on the NomCom."

Because of the "approval body" issue, I think we still need to
exclude the ISOC BoT.  I don't think any of their members are
selected by the Nomcom.  One could patch the above by saying
"...an IETF leadership body that has other NomCom-appointed
members or that approves Nomcom selections,..."

   john

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2012 15:13:11 -0400

--On Thursday, July 26, 2012 14:01 -0400 Russ Housley
<[email-masked]> wrote:

> Several IAOC voting members are not selected my NomCom.  In my
> view, none of the voting IAOC members should be NomCom members.

Russ,

Ok with me, but (ignoring ISOC members who are excluded by other
criteria, like IESG or IAB membership) why do you think the
others should be excluded?

   best,
  john

---

From: Cees de Laat <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2012 21:16:28 +0200

> members or that approves Nomcom selections,…"
                  ^^^^^^^
I think the term is: confirms Nomcom selections,...

Best regards,
Cees.

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2012 15:15:03 -0700

> Several IAOC voting members are not selected my NomCom.  In my view, none of the voting IAOC members should be NomCom members.

+1

But to generalize:

    If someone is currently a member of an IETF management group[1] they 
should not have voting rights on Nomcom.

The fact that this makes a large number of highly experienced folk 
ineligible, however, ought to be a point of concern.

d/

[1]  IESG, IAB, IRSG, IAOC, ISOC.  I suspect this should include RSOC.

-- 
  Dave Crocker
  Brandenburg InternetWorking
  bbiw.net

---

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2012 15:16:16 +0000

+1
-- 
Jonne Soininen
Renesas Mobile

Tel: +358 40 527 4634
E-mail: [email-masked]

On 7/27/12 1:15 AM, "Dave Crocker" <[email-masked]> wrote:

>> Several IAOC voting members are not selected my NomCom.  In my view,
>>none of the voting IAOC members should be NomCom members.
>
>
>+1
>
>But to generalize:
>

---

From: Russ Housley <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2012 12:57:43 -0400

>> [1]  IESG, IAB, IRSG, IAOC, ISOC.  I suspect this should include RSOC.

I do not think that RSOC belongs on this list.  RSOC members are appointed.  This is very similar to a Directorate, and it would be unreasonable to exclude all people that are on any directorate.

We have not excluded IRSG members in the past.  Why should this be changed?

Russ

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2012 11:19:16 -0700

On 7/27/2012 9:57 AM, Russ Housley wrote:
> I do not think that RSOC belongs on this list.  RSOC members are
> appointed.  This is very similar to a Directorate, and it would be
> unreasonable to exclude all people that are on any directorate.
>

I like rules that start from simple, concrete, relevant principles.

In this case, the concern is undue influence relating to formal 
authority.  That is, the excluded folk are claimed to have authority 
that could affect nomcom processes either while underway or later.  The 
simple label for such authority is "management" in the upper reaches of 
the IETF.  Hence, for example, wg chairs are deemed not sufficiently 
powerful to be a concern, whereas area directors are.

As for RSOC members being appointed, everyone is appointed in the IETF, 
so I don't see how that's relevant.

Comparing RSOC to a Directorate does seem a worthy basis for consideration.

However I'll I'll claim that RSOC has significantly more leverage.  In 
practical terms, I think oversight of the RFC Editor is more strategic 
than the casual advice offered by directorates to area directors.  I 
don't really see directorates as management-related, whereas RSOC most 
definitely is.  (I realize that the IAB has final authority, but one can 
claim that the IAB can reverse the IESG and ISOC can reverse the IAB, so 
concern for "ultimate" authority probably isn't helpful; daily, 
practical authority seems the most relevant to me.)

IRSG is interesting.  I included it mechanically, to equate with IESG. 
On reflection it probably shouldn't qualify.  In practical terms, I 
suspect IRSG members are more on a par with wg chairs.

d/

---

From: Russ Housley <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2012 14:34:24 -0400

> others should be excluded?

The leadership bodies do not want to be a self-selecting.  If a member of one of these bodies can be a voting member of NomCom, there will be perception that we have failed to achieve this goal.

Russ

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2012 14:55:47 -0400

--On Friday, July 27, 2012 11:19 -0700 Dave Crocker
<[email-masked]> wrote:

>...
> In this case, the concern is undue influence relating to
> formal authority.  That is, the excluded folk are claimed to
> have authority that could affect nomcom processes either while
> underway or later.  

Interesting.  We now have four explanations of the concern/
reason for the restriction.  In no particular order:

	* undue influence relating to formal authority

	* preventing the IAB, IESG, and maybe some other bodies,
	from becoming self-instantiating, self-selecting, or
	self-perpetuating (not all quite the same thing, but
	maybe close enough)
	
	* preventing bodies, most of whose membership is
	selected by the Nomcom, from having excessive influence
	over the Nomcom's process and decisions.
	
	* avoiding confusing or contaminating the review and
	approval process.

Those explanations, when applied, yield lists of excluded people
who overlap considerably, but they don't produce the same lists.
So it seems to be that we should try to see if we actually have
consensus about what we are trying to accomplish and why before
we try to fine-tune the rules.

And, again, while we could write rules that would exclude every
person and role about which there might possibly be doubt, the
consequence of doing so might easily be a Nomcom that selects
people for the leadership without having any internal clues
about how the leadership actually works.  That has its own
significant disadvantages.   In particular, it makes the Nomcom
completely dependent on job descriptions for individual slots or
bodies written by those bodies.  That, in turn, is as much a
risk for the perception of self selection (or clones-of-selves
selection) as actually having people from those bodies on the
Nomcom.

I hope we can find a reasonable balance, not merely a simplistic
rule.

    john

---

From: Russ Housley <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2012 14:59:35 -0400

> I hope we can find a reasonable balance, not merely a simplistic

Indeed.

Russ

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2012 12:09:13 -0700

> 	* avoiding confusing or contaminating the review and

First and third bullets look roughly equivalent to me, differing in 
focus on formality vs. pragmatics, but in practical terms I think these 
turn out to be the same.

Second bullet is an instance of the effect from the primary bullet.

Fourth bullet is less precise than one and three, but looks relatively 
similar in its concern.

Let's not confuse differences in wording with differences in principle.

And let's not spend a lot of energy in debating wording.

As for finding balance, anything requiring subtlety in application won't 
work.

d/

---

From: SM <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2012 12:28:57 -0700

At 11:34 AM 7/27/2012, Russ Housley wrote:
>The leadership bodies do not want to be a self-selecting.  If a 
>member of one of these bodies can be a voting member of NomCom, 
>there will be perception that we have failed to achieve this goal.

I gather that the "selecting" is similar to an advise and consent 
model instead of an open vote.  It's ok to fine-tune perceptions. I 
don't see much value in doing that if it doesn't affect reality.

If the leadership bodies do not want to be self-selecting they can 
raise a concern about the NomCom slate.  They may also provide 
feedback to NomCom about what they do not like.

Regards,
-sm

---

From: Mary Barnes <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2012 15:13:50 -0500

On Fri, Jul 27, 2012 at 2:28 PM, SM <[email-masked]> wrote:

>> The leadership bodies do not want to be a self-selecting.  If a member of
>> one of these bodies can be a voting member of NomCom, there will be
>> perception that we have failed to achieve this goal.
>>
>
> I gather that the "selecting" is similar to an advise and consent model
> instead of an open vote.  It's ok to fine-tune perceptions. I don't see
> much value in doing that if it doesn't affect reality.
>
> If the leadership bodies do not want to be self-selecting they can raise a
> concern about the NomCom slate.  They may also provide feedback to NomCom
> about what they do not like.
>
[MB] Exactly.  And, the really sad thing is that only about 10% of the
leadership provides any input or feedback to the Nomcom (that was the stats
the year I was chair). That is pathetic since they are the ones with the
experience in the positions which are being filled. [/MB]

>
> Regards,
> -sm
> ______________________________**_________________
> ietf-nomcom mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/**listinfo/ietf-nomcom<https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-nomcom>
>

---

From: "Eggert, Lars" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2012 20:15:11 +0000

On Jul 27, 2012, at 11:19, Dave Crocker <[email-masked]> wrote:
> In practical terms, I suspect IRSG members are more on a par with wg chairs.

Correct.

Lars

---

From: Ross Callon <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2012 16:23:27 -0400

> "If you are currently serving in a NomCom-appointed position, you are not eligible to serve on the NomCom."

This is a good rule of thumb, but IMHO is a bit too simple. 

As one obvious example, nomcom members can't serve (even though they are not in a nomcom appointed position). 

I agree with other comments that IAOC members should not be eligible to serve as nomcom voting members, regardless of whether they are nomcom appointed or otherwise appointed. 

I am inclined to agree that people who serve on a board which confirms nomcom appointments should not be able to serve on nomcom. This rules out the ISOC BOT. 

However, other than current members of nomcom, IESG, IAB, IAOC, and ISOC BOT, I don't see any need to exclude anyone else. 

Regarding the RSOC, with regard to serving on nomcom I don't see being on the RSOC as all that different from being a WG chair: neither RSOC nor WG chairs are confirming nomcom appointments nor are members of nomcom appointed groups. It seems valuable to have some members of nomcom who actually understand the IETF, and WG chairs and RSOC members are likely to have some useful understanding. I think that they should be allowed to volunteer for nomcom. 

Ross

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2012 13:27:12 -0700

> much value in doing that if it doesn't affect reality.

In very formal terms, perhaps.  But in reality, the confirming bodies 
essentially never do actual rejections.  They come close, sometimes, but 
I believe the cases in which a Nomcom has changed a nomination have been 
close to zero, if not zero.

In advice-and-consent models like the US government, the confirming 
bodies often reject.

> If the leadership bodies do not want to be self-selecting they can raise
> a concern about the NomCom slate.  They may also provide feedback to
> NomCom about what they do not like.

1.  It it not only the leadership who do not want the bodies to be 
self-selecting.  It is the community.

2.  Raising a concern after a slate has been announced doesn't work.

Hence the goal is to formulate proactive rules that make it likely a 
slate of Nomcom voting members will have sufficient experience to 
provide insight and sufficient independence to provide... independence.

d/

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2012 12:06:35 -0700

d/