Hi Bernard,
Thanks for the review. I've taken your clarity objections in this PR:
As for whether or not it's wise to include remote-only attendees in the NomCom, that's a totally legitimate objection. It's up to our AD (and the IESG) if that amounts to a consensus that this is a bad change.
Martin
On Tue, Jan 17, 2023 at 8:51 PM Bernard Aboba <bernard.aboba@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> "Finally, the NomCom interview process was largely conducted in-person at IETF
> meetings, so the ability to attend was a prerequisite to participate."Brian said:
"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] Given that we have had two NomComs running under COVID conditions, I would agree that the text should be deleted or at least revised to reflect reality.> 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.
Brian said:"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."[BA] As it stands, the document largely ignores the COVID operational experience. If there is indeed a recognition that "those days are gone, or nearly gone" then I would agree that references to former practices are not helpful. My personal preference would be for the document to refer to the COVID operational experience as context.On Tue, Jan 17, 2023 at 1:31 PM Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: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
