Andrew:
a) I could not figure out from the draft or this mail thread under which
track you want this document to become an RFC. Depending on the
track choosen i guess the way how the document should be discussed
could be as you indicated (one on one with you), or it should be
discussed many-to-many in a group. So i'll just start addressing
both you and ietf@xxxxxxxx until thats clear.
b) Thanks a lot for the work.
c) I think the procedures described are pretty good and very diligent.
However:
c.1) It is unclear to me why we would want these rules to apply to
every ISOC President. I for once could see this perfectly well simply
as a declaration by you, outlining the process you will follow. and
making it "just" a declaration would make it easier for your successors
to adjust/change the processes.
c.2) Maybe i am reading incorrectly between the lines, but
"this represents a change to the existing process" sounds as if
this document needs to become an RFC so that you could publically
"moot" candidates. But thats not clear to me. Just because public
"mooting" wasn't done so far doesn't seem to mean that you couldn't
do it even without this document becoming an RFC defining requirements.
Aka: i see nothing in the existing RFCs prohibiting the mooting.
c.3) The other key reason why i guess you wrote this is to establish
even past your term a less insider-trading approach to the selection
process. Which is admirable. But i again have to weight good intention
against ever growing bureaucracy and RFCs piling on requirements
because all of our RFC requirements especially those about process
are legislated over by anal retentive engineers forever.
In summary: IMHO, this doc might work better if it was just a declaration
of how you will do things without raising actual process requirements
against your successors or you. I think even in that form the document
would be making any successor select a process that attempts its best to
make selection less biased and less insider-trading.
Cheers
Toerless
On Mon, Feb 14, 2022 at 12:54:05AM -0500, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
> Dear colleagues,
>
> I write with my job hat on. I'm employed by the Internet Society.
>
> Part of my job here is to select the NomCom Chair. I've been
> uncomfortable about how that has worked in the past, and more than a
> year ago I said I'd write a new process. I failed at that goal, but
> it's a new year so I've finally written this. It's at
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-sullivan-nomcom-chair-select/.
>
> I am eagerly requesting feedback on that draft _for things under my
> control_. The procedures in RFC 8713 give me a lot of latitude in how
> to deal with this appointment. They give me no control whatsoever as
> to whether I _should_ be able to do this, who else should do it, and
> so on. Feedback of the form "Here's how NomCom should work for real,"
> will be ignored, because they will not provide me guidance as to what
> I should do.
>
> Please also resist the temptation to tell me, "Tell someone else it's
> their thing and promise to follow what they promise." If the IETF
> wants to modify RFC 8713, including removing my own role in this
> selection, I don't imagine a universe in which I'd work to work to
> foil that. But similarly I am not willing to create an entirely new
> consultative body (or new job for an existing consultative body)
> without the community saying so. This document is merely an outline
> of how I plan to execute my duties as they're already defined.
>
> I hope this will be a modest contribution to the IETF, and I look
> forward to your suggestions.
>
> _Please_ send me feedback directly and not copied to the list. I
> won't be able to follow discussion about this on the list except
> sporadically, and I'm going to have to put this plan into action some
> time in the coming weeks. Thanks very much.
>
> Best regards,
>
> A
>
> --
> Andrew Sullivan
> President & CEO, Internet Society
> sullivan@xxxxxxxx
> +1 416 731 1261
--
---
tte@xxxxxxxxx
