Re: Last Call: draft-dawkins-nomcom-openlist (NominatingCommittee Process: Open Disclosure of Willing Nominees) to BCP

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



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

[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]