Hi, Russ,
Here's where I am on this...
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.
Although 3777 doesn't use 2119 conventions (so I'm not introducing any
reliance on these conventions in my update, I believe the use of "may" in
the current text
<t>The list of nominees willing to be considered for positions under
review
in the current NomCom cycle is not confidential.
The NomCom may publish a list of names of nominees who are willing to be
considered
for positions under review to the community,
in order to obtain feedback from the community on these nominees.
</t>
says "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.
This was not addressed in the current text. I'm adding
<t>The NomCom may choose not to include some names in the public list, if
this is the
right thing to do, in NomCom's opinion.
</t>
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.
I'm reading this as "no change required".
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".
I'm reading this as "no change required".
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.
I removed the semi-snarky comments on each concern, and moved the list of
concerns itself to an appendix.
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'm reading this as requesting text that looks like this:
<t>Nominees may choose to ask people to provide feedback to NomCom, but
should not encourage any public statements of support. NomComs should
consider
nominee-encouraged lobbying and campaigning to be unacceptable
behavior,
</t>
<t>IETF community members are encouraged to provide feedback on nominees
to NomCom, but
should not post statements of support/non-support for nominees in any
public forum.
</t>
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.
Updated draft is now available at
http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-dawkins-nomcom-openlist-05.txt
Thanks,
Spencer
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf