The IETF Last Call discussion of draft-dawkins-nomcom-openlist
resulted in a healthy discussion with many people speaking. Some
people think that the open list is the right thing to do, but other
people want to redesign the entire NomCom process from a base set of
principles. This message summarizes my view of the consensus
following that discussion, and it suggests a way forward.
Overall, I think there is community support for open lists. However,
there are a few shades of gray regarding issues that were raised in
the IETF Last Call.
For publication of an open list being mandatory...
... I judge the consensus to be against it. That is, publication of
an open list by NomCom is allowed but not required.
For allowing NomCom to suppress names ...
... I judge the consensus to allow it. That is, the community does
not want to tie the NomCom hands as there may be cases where it is
the right thing to do.
For open feedback sessions on IAB/IESG/AD/WG chair performance and
interaction with NomCom when some people being discussed are under
consideration by NomCom ...
... I judge the consensus to be that the community does not consider
this to be a real problem. The community wants NomCom-selected
leadership to be able to publicly seek feedback on their performance.
It is also silly to ask NomCom to ignore any public feedback sessions
that might occur.
For allowing nominees to say "but the incumbent is better" in public ...
... I judge the consensus to be against such statements. We also
want to avoid statements that say, "I'm running because the current
guy isn't doing a good job".
For statements of opinion in the draft ("the community might accept") ...
... I will have the author remove them before IESG
evaluation. Spencer included this material to indicate that comments
from earlier reviews were heard.. However, I think that potential
concerns about open nominee lists should go in an appendix. This
material could be useful in the future.
For MUST NOT lobby or campaign ...
... I judge that the community did not reach consensus on this
topic. Important points include:
1) It was pointed out that the only enforcement mechanism available
is for NomCom to do something if it happens. If public statements of
support are perceived to work, then we have changed the process in a
way that we want to avoid.
2) Refusal to consider people just because someone else made a public
statement of support seems unwise. That would be a serious DOS attack.
3) We should have MUST NOT precisely because we can't enforce the
rules, so they need to look strong.
... I have asked the author to rewrite this section to make these points:
1) Nominee encouraged lobbying and campaigning are considered
unacceptable behavior.
2) NomCom cannot be expected to completely ignore any lobby or
campaign effort that might occur; however, NomCom ought to consider
the judgment of any nominee that encourages or supports such activities.
I suggest that the best way forward from this point is to have the
author post an updated I-D, and then conduct a focused IETF Last Call
on the one yet-to-be-resolved issue.
Russ Housley
General Area Director
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf