Hi Bernard,
On 17-Jan-23 13:10, Bernard Aboba via Datatracker wrote:
Reviewer: Bernard Aboba
Review result: On the Right Track
This document has been reviewed as part of the transport area review team's
ongoing effort to review key IETF documents. These comments were written
primarily for the transport area directors, but are copied to the document's
authors and WG to allow them to address any issues raised and also to the IETF
discussion list for information.
When done at the time of IETF Last Call, the authors should consider this
review as part of the last-call comments they receive. Please always CC
tsv-art@xxxxxxxx if you reply to or forward this review.
draft-ietf-elgy-rfc8989bis relates to Documents Nominating Committee
Eligibility, so strictly speaking, there are no Transport Area considerations
to review.
However, as a former NomCom Chair, I'll provide my thoughts on it.
Overall, I feel that this document is not crystal clear about exactly what
Sections of RFC 8713 are being updated.
I'm not convinced. I agree it doesn't do a precise OLD/NEW, but we
can ask the two most recent NomCom chairs whether they had any lack
of clarity about the changed rules in RFC8989, which used similar
language.
Not that I'm against clarifications, but I'm not sure we have any
real ambiguity in the present text.
<snip>
There is a bigger problem though, which is that the document does not fully
address the impact on nomcom operation.
Section 3 states:
"Finally, the NomCom interview process was largely conducted in-person at IETF
meetings, so the ability to attend was a prerequisite to participate."
I'm not sure that this topic is even in scope for the elegy WG, which was
very narrowly tasked, so perhaps the text on this point should simply be
deleted. We have had two NomComs running under COVID conditions, and
when we inevitably reduce the future cadence of IETF meetings for
sustainability reasons, we will also inevitably do more NomCom business
remotely. We'd better get used to it.
[BA] While nomcoms have also made use of remote interviews, the ability to
connect with much of the IETF leadership in person during the initial IETF week
after nomcom appointment has been very helpful for orienting the nomcom
participants.
It's true, but I think those days are gone, or nearly gone. Below...
While it is not impossible for a remote nomcom participant to
join all the initial interviews, where that initial IETF meeting was held in
an inconvenient timezone, the participant might need to spend much of the week
participating in interviews at an inconvenient hour. This is a more onerous
requirement than attending a single session during an IETF week, or even
attending a few sessions during an IETF week.
Section 3 continues:
"While this document does not formally impose a requirement for the NomCom to
function entirely remotely, including remote-only attendees in the pool is
likely to effectively require a remote component to NomCom operations."
[BA] The idea of including remote-only attendees in the pool without thinking
through how the NomCom can function entirely remotely strikes me as a
significant omission.
Again, the WG charter says "No other aspect of NomCom selection or
operation is in scope." So if we don't like this aspect of the draft,
we should probably just delete it as out of scope.
Regards
Brian
I realize that this document can't specify exactly what
arrangements should be made, but I do feel that the requirements for
participation in the nomcom need to be clear, and that these might be different
than the requirements for joining the pool. For example, if there is an
expectation that the nomcom chair will provide remote access to interview
sessions, that should be stated in the document. Or if there is no
expectation, then perhaps the nomcom chair should include in the Call for
Participation information about remote participation in the nomcom. It doesn't
strike me as useful for remote-only attendees in the pool to discover that they
cannot usefully participate in the initial IETF week interviews without any
prior indication that this might be the case.
--
last-call mailing list
last-call@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
