Subject: Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-kucherawy-rfc7437bis-03.txt

From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2015 00:04:00 -0500

Revised version posted.  Try this one on for size.  The tl;dr version of
the changes:

1) Added Allison's text providing guidance about running interviews.

2) Added a modified version of Allison's text emphasizing thorough
evaluations.

3) Added a section talking about evolving the qualification requirements
the next time we revise this document, on the presumption that we can't
come to consensus right now on an acceptable revision.  If in fact we can
come to consensus on some, I can throw this out and make those changes.

-MSK

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 12:00 AM
Subject: New Version Notification for draft-kucherawy-rfc7437bis-03.txt
To: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <[email-masked]>

A new version of I-D, draft-kucherawy-rfc7437bis-03.txt
has been successfully submitted by Murray S. Kucherawy and posted to the
IETF repository.

Name:           draft-kucherawy-rfc7437bis
Revision:       03
Title:          IAB, IESG, and IAOC Selection, Confirmation, and Recall
Process: Operation of the Nominating and Recall Committees
Document date:  2015-02-18
Group:          Individual Submission
Pages:          38
URL:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-kucherawy-rfc7437bis-03.txt
Status:         https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-kucherawy-rfc7437bis/
Htmlized:       http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-kucherawy-rfc7437bis-03
Diff:
http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-kucherawy-rfc7437bis-03

Abstract:
   The process by which the members of the IAB and IESG, and some
   members of the IAOC, are selected, confirmed, and recalled is
   specified in this document.  This document is a self-consistent,
   organized compilation of the process as it has evolved since the
   publication of [RFC7437].

Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission
until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org.

The IETF Secretariat

---

From: Allison Mankin <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2015 00:23:53 -0500

Read it.  Looks good.

On 19 February 2015 at 00:04, Murray S. Kucherawy <[email-masked]>
wrote:

> Status:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-kucherawy-rfc7437bis/

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2015 08:21:17 -0500

--On Thursday, February 19, 2015 00:04 -0500 "Murray S.
Kucherawy" <[email-masked]> wrote:

>...
> 3) Added a section talking about evolving the qualification
> requirements the next time we revise this document, on the
> presumption that we can't come to consensus right now on an
> acceptable revision.  If in fact we can come to consensus on
> some, I can throw this out and make those changes.

Murray,

I might be the only one (and this is more or less a call for
others concerned to speak up), but I do not consider deferring
the qualification issues until the "next time" acceptable,
especially given how infrequently we are willing to
significantly revisit BCP 10 and the supposed emphasis on
diversity, expanding IETF participation, and enabling remote
participation.  I believe "qualification requirements" issue is
actually two topics with the second being more important than
the first:

(1) The actual qualifications for serving on the Nomcom (see
Sam's note and my follow-up).

(2) The linkages of various other procedural qualifications to
Nomcom eligibility.

At least the latter is, IMO, a fairness issue.

      john

---

From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2015 11:41:56 -0500

> At least the latter is, IMO, a fairness issue.

Hi John,

In case it wasn't clear from my comments, I agree that there's something to
be resolved here.  My added text here is only capturing the conversation so
far, namely that we all seem to agree on that point but haven't managed yet
to come up with something concrete to replace what's there now.  When that
changes, the text absolutely will change.  If we give up and decide to ship
this revision as-is, we're set; but there's no deadline here, so we can
take as long as we want to come up with something.

Maybe we'll have some success flipping this around.  Perhaps we select the
NomCom volunteer pool by having the ISE, ADs, and WG chairs at least (and
anyone else that wants to) toss out a stack of names each (maybe minimum 10
each), at every meeting, of people they have observed as contributing
either in person or remotely.  Self-nomination is allowed.  That
compilation then becomes the pool of volunteers from which random selection
is done for the next NomCom.  This filters out people that qualify under
whatever criteria we might create but might otherwise be seen to be gaming
those rules, but there are enough people tossing names into the proverbial
hat then that any bias is presumably diluted.

Comments?

-MSK