Subject: Some thoughts about draft-leiba-3777upd-eligibility-02.txt

From: "Adrian Farrel" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2012 11:10:30 +0100

Hi,

I have one discussion point and a number of small nits...

Cheers,
Adrian

---

Discussion point.

The Abstract makes it clear that the purpose of the document is to
handle the (new) IAOC and to resolve uncertainty about liaisons and
ex-officio members of the IAB, IESG, and IAOC.

This seems reasonable to me.

However, the document very quickly launches into a discussion of other
people to exclude from NomCom. It does this by introducing the concept
of a "conflict of interest." There may be a valid debate to have about
conflict of interest, but I personally find it a very long wedge, and
although there may be clear-cut cases at either extreme, it is by no
means clear where to draw the line.

I find the excuse used (that those excluded are unlikely to volunteer)
as rather poor taste. It may be true that such people have not 
volunteered in the past, but that should not be used as a reason. You
are removing rights that people previously had - you should have good,
stand-alone reasons and not depend on whether or not earlier holders of
certain posts exercised those rights.
                                                                         
So:

1. Since I think that CoI is a label on a really nasty box you don't
   want to open, I would prefer you to not use the term. You do
   perfectly well when you say:
     This document also excludes certain individuals who are directly
     paid for their work with the IETF...
   I think you can leave it at that.

2. Please align the Abstract and the content by updating the Abstract
   to mention exclusion of paid individuals.

3. Please don't lean on RFC 3777 for the introduction of CoI to this
   document (you do this in Section 1). RFC 3777 does not use the term
   and does not appear to have any text that is related to the concept.
   If you believe there is good reason to exclude volunteers from
   NomCom, you should make that case in this document.
                    
4. Remove the commentary on whether those excluded are or are not
   likely to volunteer.

---

Section 1 (petty)
OLD
   The selection of the NomCom, therefore, excludes those individuals
   who are in top leadership positions currently.
NEW
   The selection of the NomCom, therefore, excludes those individuals
   who are in top leadership positions at the time of selection.
END

The point being that it is not those in the positions on 8/18/12 who
are excluded.

---

Section 1 (punctuation)
   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 IETF Administrative Oversight Committee
   (IAOC) was formed, and that body is not covered by RFC 3777.  There
   is also uncertainty about whether ex-officio members liaisons, and
   such are included as "sitting members".     
s/members liaisons/members, liaisons/

---

Section 1 (tone)

OLD
   This document also excludes certain individuals who are directly paid
   for their work with the IETF, and who, therefore, have a direct
   personal financial incentive in the selection of the leadership
   boards.
NEW
   This document also excludes certain individuals who are directly paid
   for their work with the IETF, and who, therefore, might have a direct
   personal financial incentive in the selection of the leadership
   boards.
END

Let us not assume that the system is completely corrupt!

---
                                       
Section 2 (editorial)

The section title is wrong.

You probably need "Changes to RFC 37777"

Then you have:
OLD
   This document makes the following updates to
   add the IAOC to certain of the processes that are not covered there.
NEW
   This document makes the following updates to
   add the IAOC to certain of the processes, and to introduce other small
   process changes as described in Section 1.
END

...and delete

   Note that the change below to Section 4, bullet 15 also puts
   additional restrictions on who may volunteer as a voting member of
   the NomCom.

---

      15.2.  People serving in the IETF Secretariat and the RFC Editor
           may not volunteer to serve as voting members of the
           nominating committee.

Slight problem with the term "RFC Editor" since this is a single person
and also a service function. I suspect you mean the latter.

---

   o  In bullet 16, to correct an erratum, the last paragraph is
      replaced by this:

         One possible selection method is described in RFC 3797 [1].

Perfectly correct, but I don't think this document is the place to
correct random errata.

---

From: Barry Leiba <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2012 15:34:00 -0400

> I have one discussion point and a number of small nits...

Fine comments, all; thanks for taking the time.

I don't really see the discussion point as needing discussion.  You're
right, and I'll fix that set of stuff in the next version.  I could
say why certain text got in there in the first place (from early
comments and discussion), but it doesn't matter: I agree that it
should be changed.

> and also a service function. I suspect you mean the latter.

I do, and I actually had the same problem with it when I wrote it as
you do.  So help me, please: How *should* this be put?  I don't like,
"and those employed in the RFC Editor function," and I really can't
think of a concise, clean, accurate way to write it down, though we
all (today) know what it means.  Text, please, someone.

> Perfectly correct, but I don't think this document is the place to

I was (and am) ambivalent here.  I did not have this in my first
version.  SM did.  When we merged the proposals, I thought it was a
good idea to fix that.  But you're right that it's rather off topic,
and the right place to do that would be 3777bis, which this decidedly
is NOT.

I'm inclined to pull it out (having not checked that with SM yet,
though).  Does anyone (including SM) think it definitely needs to be
in here?

Barry

---

From: Donald Eastlake <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2012 15:45:27 -0400

On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 3:34 PM, Barry Leiba <[email-masked]> wrote:
> ...

In particular, I believe the there are Editorial Boards that the
various fragments of the RFC Editor appoint and consult which should
not be excluded.

Thanks,
Donald
=============================
 Donald E. Eastlake 3rd   +1-508-333-2270 (cell)
 155 Beaver Street, Milford, MA 01757 USA
 [email-masked]

---

From: "Adrian Farrel" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2012 20:58:26 +0100

How about asking Heather for the appropriate term?
Seems easier than guessing :-)

A

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Donald Eastlake [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: 21 August 2012 20:45
> To: Barry Leiba
> Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked];
> [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: Some thoughts about draft-leiba-3777upd-eligibility-02.txt
>

---

From: Barry Leiba <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2012 16:06:10 -0400

> Seems easier than guessing :-)

Good idea.  The point here is to address the regular, paid employees,
not any people appointed to advise, nor any regular IETF folks who
might do occasional contracting.  I'll see if Heather has any ideas.

Barry

---

From: Bob Hinden <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2012 13:52:18 -0700

>   I think you can leave it at that.

While on this topic, we might as well get it right.  The text in the draft is:

   This document also excludes certain individuals who are directly paid
   for their work with the IETF, and who, therefore, have a direct
   personal financial incentive in the selection of the leadership
   boards.  We limit this exclusion to a few people who are paid for
   long-term full-time work.  In practice, they are unlikely to
   volunteer for the NomCom anyway, so this addition makes little
   practical change.

I assume the intent is exclude people who are paid by the IETF to do work in the IETF.  For example, the IAD.  The problem is that no one is paid by the IETF.  The IETF has several people who do work at it's direction.  This is done as direct employees of ISOC or as contractors who have their contracts with ISOC.  We also hire (via ISOC) companies that provide services to the IETF.  This ranges from the secretariat services, NOC services, tools development, program management services, and tools specification development.  In these cases it difficult to tell if an individual is working for the IETF "long-term full-time work".  

Further, the text as written could be interpreted to exclude people who's employers pay they to participate in the IETF.  For example, that would include me because it is part of my job to participate in the IETF.  I don't think that is the intent of the text in the draft, but it would be easy to interpret it that way.  OK, maybe I don't do it full time, but all of the IESG position require full time support.  

If this text is to remain, it needs to be clearer as to what it means.  

Bob

Bob

---

From: Barry Leiba <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2012 17:27:57 -0400

> I assume the intent is exclude people who are paid by the IETF to do
> work in the IETF.  For example, the IAD.

Correct.

> In these cases it difficult to tell if an individual is working for the
> IETF "long-term full-time work".

Indeed; it's difficult in many cases.

> If this text is to remain, it needs to be clearer as to what it means.

Which may say that it should not remain.

The specific exclusions that are in the real "rules" part are for the
IETF Secretariat and the RFC Editor.  I would be just as happy to
remove those.  We can question whether we want to leave the RSE in,
specifically, but there's probably no real need to exclude the paid
RFC Editor function employees.  I'll note that the IAD is already
excluded by the "ex-officio" clause (he's an ex-officio IAOC member).
The current IAD has told me that he thinks it would be inappropriate
for the IAD to volunteer in any case, whether or not he's allowed to.

Margaret has commented that this stuff should come out.  Others, in
early conversations and discussions about all of this, thought it
should be in.  Further comments appreciated.

In particular: should bullet 15,2 (and its supporting text elsewhere)
be removed?

Barry

---

From: S Moonesamy <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2012 14:13:50 -0700

>all (today) know what it means.  Text, please, someone.

RFC 4844 (see Section 3.1) uses the term "RFC Editor".  RFC 6635 
mentions "RFC Editor function".  I suggest going with the RFC 4844 
argument about simplicity and using "RFC Editor".  I cannot think of 
an accurate way to write that paragraph.

>though).  Does anyone (including SM) think it definitely needs to be

I don't have a strong opinion about the erratum.  Pull it out.

>various fragments of the RFC Editor appoint and consult which should

These bodies were left out.  There is a comment in the draft labelled 
as anchor1.

At 13:11 21-08-2012, Margaret Wasserman wrote:
>Why do you want to rule out employees of those groups?
>
>I don't think that most of them would have any interest in 
>volunteering for the nomcom, but why would it be a problem if they 
>did?  I mean, I could picture someone who worked for the RFC Editor 
>who was also technically involved in the IETF, like Aaron Falk used 
>to be, and I don't know why we would want to disqualify someone like 
>that from volunteering for the nomcom.

I'll comment as part of the message which Adrian posted.

>means clear where to draw the line.

Yes.

>certain posts exercised those rights.

The last sentence broaches an interesting angle.  From RFC 3777:

   "The IETF Secretariat is responsible for confirming that
    volunteers have met the attendance requirement."

   "The IETF Secretariat is responsible for confirming that each
    signatory is qualified to be a voting member of a nominating
    committee."

As the IETF Secretariat has duties in the RFC 3777 mechanism, would 
it be a good stand-alone reason to remove the right to be a volunteer?

The RSE and ISE are under contract with the IAOC.  The other part of 
the RFC Editor (function) are external organizations.

At 13:52 21-08-2012, Bob Hinden wrote:
>work in the IETF.  For example, the IAD.  The problem is that no one 
>is paid by the IETF.  The IETF has several people who do work at 
>it's direction.  This is done as direct employees of ISOC or as 
>contractors who have their contracts with ISOC.  We also hire (via 
>ISOC) companies that provide services to the IETF.  This ranges from 
>the secretariat services, NOC services, tools development, program 
>management services, and tools specification development.  In these 
>cases it difficult to tell if an individual is working for the IETF 
>"long-term full-time work".

Ok. :-)

>Further, the text as written could be interpreted to exclude people 
>who's employers pay they to participate in the IETF.  For example, 
>that would include me because it is part of my job to participate in 
>the IETF.  I don't think that is the intent of the text in the 
>draft, but it would be easy to interpret it that way.  OK, maybe I 
>don't do it full time, but all of the IESG position require full time support.

It is the additions to RFC 3777 that matters as they become part of 
the RFC 3777 rules.

I'll discuss about the comments with Barry before commenting further.

Regards,
S. Moonesamy

---

From: Bob Hinden <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2012 15:10:31 -0700

Barry,

>> work in the IETF.  For example, the IAD.

Thanks.

> excluded by the "ex-officio" clause (he's an ex-officio IAOC member).

Right, but he is one of our two paid employees (via ISOC).

> for the IAD to volunteer in any case, whether or not he's allowed to.

I agree.

> should be in.  Further comments appreciated.

I would be OK if it called out the IAD and the RSE as being ineligible.  It's simpler than trying to generalize it.
> In particular: should bullet 15,2 (and its supporting text elsewhere)

15,2 should probably say "People employed in the IETF Secretariat….".  

I would leave it in.  My thinking is that the IESG, IAB, and IAOC have oversight roles over the Secretariat and RFC Editor.  Having people employed by these organizations be directly involved in the selection of the IESG, IAB, and IAOC would be odd.

Bob

---

From: Barry Leiba <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2012 18:44:02 -0400

> I would leave it in.  My thinking is that the IESG, IAB, and IAOC have oversight
> roles over the Secretariat and RFC Editor.  Having people employed by these
> organizations be directly involved in the selection of the IESG, IAB, and IAOC
> would be odd.

Yes, that was the intent of having it in.  The devil, though, is in the details.

Do others have wisdom to add here?

Barry

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2012 07:15:48 -0400

--On Tuesday, August 21, 2012 15:10 -0700 Bob Hinden
<[email-masked]> wrote:

>> In particular: should bullet 15,2 (and its supporting text
>> elsewhere) be removed?
> 
> I would leave it in.  My thinking is that the IESG, IAB, and
> IAOC have oversight roles over the Secretariat and RFC Editor.
> Having people employed by these organizations be directly
> involved in the selection of the IESG, IAB, and IAOC would be
> odd.

Bob,

There is a slippery slope of trying to make hair-splitting rules
here that I've very reluctant to see the community to start
down.  However, if one were trying to write such rules based on
real risk of inappropriate behavior --rather than leaving those
risks in place and focusing on the appearance of oddity-- it
seems to me that the focus might better be on those who bid on
or obtain short-term contracts to do specific work, such as
specification-writing or implementation, for the IETF.
Precisely because they are short-term (in both the RFP->
Contract Award -> Performance period) and because they
apparently often involve working much more closely with a few
IAOC or IESG members (although I'm not aware of its being done
in recent years, presumably anyone hired by the IAB to write a
workshop report would be in the same category), those
contractors have much more potential for "you scratch my back,
I'll scratch yours" relationships than individuals who are not
subject to direct supervision from the I* leadership.

I want to stress that I'm not aware of even the suspicion of
anything improper occurring in this area in the past.   I
continue to believe that we would be better off with general
guidance that people who are significantly dependent financially
on the IETF via ISOC or equivalent funding for IETF activities
should avoid volunteering for the Nomcom than with trying to
establish rules that are exactly right and avoid all loopholes
in them.  In practice, I'm much more concerned about the
potential for companies (or closely-aligned groups of companies)
to "pack" the Nomcom than I am for abuse from groups of people
who have generally avoided volunteering for the Nomcom in the
past.    But, if we need to try to write precise rules, let's
try to identify and sweep in all of the important cases, not
just obvious ones with bad optics but little practical risk.

best,
   john

     john

---

From: Margaret Wasserman <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2012 16:11:04 -0400

I don't think that most of them would have any interest in volunteering for the nomcom, but why would it be a problem if they did?  I mean, I could picture someone who worked for the RFC Editor who was also technically involved in the IETF, like Aaron Falk used to be, and I don't know why we would want to disqualify someone like that from volunteering for the nomcom.

Thoughts?

Margaret