Hi,
I have one discussion point and a number of small nits...
Cheers,
Adrian
---
Discussion point.
The Abstract makes it clear that the purpose of the document is to
handle the (new) IAOC and to resolve uncertainty about liaisons and
ex-officio members of the IAB, IESG, and IAOC.
This seems reasonable to me.
However, the document very quickly launches into a discussion of other
people to exclude from NomCom. It does this by introducing the concept
of a "conflict of interest." There may be a valid debate to have about
conflict of interest, but I personally find it a very long wedge, and
although there may be clear-cut cases at either extreme, it is by no
means clear where to draw the line.
I find the excuse used (that those excluded are unlikely to volunteer)
as rather poor taste. It may be true that such people have not
volunteered in the past, but that should not be used as a reason. You
are removing rights that people previously had - you should have good,
stand-alone reasons and not depend on whether or not earlier holders of
certain posts exercised those rights.
So:
1. Since I think that CoI is a label on a really nasty box you don't
want to open, I would prefer you to not use the term. You do
perfectly well when you say:
This document also excludes certain individuals who are directly
paid for their work with the IETF...
I think you can leave it at that.
2. Please align the Abstract and the content by updating the Abstract
to mention exclusion of paid individuals.
3. Please don't lean on RFC 3777 for the introduction of CoI to this
document (you do this in Section 1). RFC 3777 does not use the term
and does not appear to have any text that is related to the concept.
If you believe there is good reason to exclude volunteers from
NomCom, you should make that case in this document.
4. Remove the commentary on whether those excluded are or are not
likely to volunteer.
---
Section 1 (petty)
OLD
The selection of the NomCom, therefore, excludes those individuals
who are in top leadership positions currently.
NEW
The selection of the NomCom, therefore, excludes those individuals
who are in top leadership positions at the time of selection.
END
The point being that it is not those in the positions on 8/18/12 who
are excluded.
---
Section 1 (punctuation)
RFC 3777 specifies that "sitting members" of the IAB and IESG "may
not volunteer to serve on the nominating committee". Since that
document was written the IETF Administrative Oversight Committee
(IAOC) was formed, and that body is not covered by RFC 3777. There
is also uncertainty about whether ex-officio members liaisons, and
such are included as "sitting members".
s/members liaisons/members, liaisons/
---
Section 1 (tone)
OLD
This document also excludes certain individuals who are directly paid
for their work with the IETF, and who, therefore, have a direct
personal financial incentive in the selection of the leadership
boards.
NEW
This document also excludes certain individuals who are directly paid
for their work with the IETF, and who, therefore, might have a direct
personal financial incentive in the selection of the leadership
boards.
END
Let us not assume that the system is completely corrupt!
---
Section 2 (editorial)
The section title is wrong.
You probably need "Changes to RFC 37777"
Then you have:
OLD
This document makes the following updates to
add the IAOC to certain of the processes that are not covered there.
NEW
This document makes the following updates to
add the IAOC to certain of the processes, and to introduce other small
process changes as described in Section 1.
END
...and delete
Note that the change below to Section 4, bullet 15 also puts
additional restrictions on who may volunteer as a voting member of
the NomCom.
---
15.2. People serving in the IETF Secretariat and the RFC Editor
may not volunteer to serve as voting members of the
nominating committee.
Slight problem with the term "RFC Editor" since this is a single person
and also a service function. I suspect you mean the latter.
---
o In bullet 16, to correct an erratum, the last paragraph is
replaced by this:
One possible selection method is described in RFC 3797 [1].
Perfectly correct, but I don't think this document is the place to
correct random errata.