So, do you think “personnel decisions” is a transparent process? My understanding is that it means if you have some friends, or political reasons to select among the volunteers one or the other … you don’t need to explain it.
I really think this is plain wrong.
What worries me, again, is the lack of transparency. It is not the first time I feel the IAOC is not acting in a responsible way.
I will say even a basic education matter, because I’m still waiting since August 2015, the promised response from the IAOC (the specific matter don't care, the point is not having a response at all). Do you think this is a reasonable way for the IAOC to just non-respond, despite they said will do?
Is this transparency?
We need a clear process, and you’re right, it is a separate conversation, and as I said, my opinion is that committees should not require “external” volunteers, which will avoid this kind “personnel decisions”, just having enough seats to avoid excess workload among IAOC members.
Regards,
Jordi
-----Mensaje original-----
De: Leslie Daigle <ldaigle@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Responder a: <ldaigle@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Fecha: jueves, 17 de noviembre de 2016, 11:45
Para: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <jordi.palet@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
CC: IAOC IAOC <iaoc@xxxxxxxx>, IETF discussion list <ietf@xxxxxxxx>
Asunto: Re: [IAOC] question to the IAOC: new committee members
Jordi,
Whether or not the structure of the IAOC (size, composition) is right is a separate conversation, and let’s leave that aside.
The IAOC’s Committees are populated by and work at the pleasure of the IAOC, which decides who makes sense to put on them, what expertise and experience is important at a moment in time, and how best to put people together that they believe will work well together. We do review committee membership on (at least) an annual basis. If that sounds self-serving, it perhaps is: it’s how the IAOC gets work done. It also means that the committees do not make decisions — they do work and present recommendations to the IAOC, which makes decisions and takes responsibility for the outcomes.
We have not published detailed review our our decision process about composing the committees — these are intimately tied to the details of how we get our work done and they are, frankly, personnel decisions.
In making our call for community volunteers, we did try to be clear about what we were looking for. We are trying to be clear and transparent about who is helping us get our work done (i.e., who is on the committees).
I understand you are not happy with our choices, and I’m sorry you feel that way. I am around through midday tomorrow if you want to talk about it offline.
Leslie.
--
________________________________________
Leslie Daigle
Principal, ThinkingCat Enterprises LLC
ldaigle@thinkingcat.comOn 16 Nov 2016, at 20:21, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote:
Hi Lou,
I was aware of the email you mention, and also the Committees page, but still fail to see the procedure and how the selection of the candidates was done in a way that allows the community to validate the IAOC decision, or even appeal it.
I will still think that the right way is to accommodate for more seats at the IAOC, as the workload can be better measured after 10 years than when it was designed.
Every time I try to find the minutes of the IAOC are too short, and if published too late and quite incomplete. I can’t see the qualifications of the volunteers of each committee in which the decision was based. So is that transparent?
Regards,
Jordi
-----Mensaje original-----
De: ietf <ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx> en nombre de Lou Berger <lberger@xxxxxxxx>
Responder a: <lberger@xxxxxxxx>
Fecha: jueves, 17 de noviembre de 2016, 5:55
Para: "Scott O. Bradner" <sob@xxxxxxxxx>, Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@xxxxxxxxx>, <jordi.palet@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
CC: IAOC IAOC <iaoc@xxxxxxxx>, IETF discussion list <ietf@xxxxxxxx>
Asunto: Re: [IAOC] question to the IAOC: new committee members
For reference:
https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf-announce/current/msg15684.html
Which also points to https://iaoc.ietf.org/committees.html
In looking at both, the only thing not completely spelled out is
something like:
- ... Candidates are appointed based on the information they
provide, and input received from the existing committee membership and
chairs. Appointment is finalized once the candidate confirm their
willingness to serve and execute any required non-disclosure. Updated
(and current) committee membership is then published to the community.
Lou
On 11/17/2016 4:38 AM, Scott O. Bradner wrote:
> there was also a public call for volunteers (which is how we got the names)
>
> Scott
>
>> On Nov 16, 2016, at 2:26 PM, Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>> Jordi,
>>
>> It's very common for committees to appoint sub-committees, within their
>> range of responsibilities, and for sub-committees to coopt experts.
>>
>> I am not in the least shocked by this; in fact given the expansion of
>> the IASA's workload over the last 10 years it seems entirely normal
>> to me. I don't think anything has been hidden, and of course the IAOC
>> as a whole remains responsible for the work of IASA subcommittees,
>> according to section 3.2 of RFC4071. Specifically "The IAOC's mission
>> is not to be engaged in the day-to-day administrative work of the IASA,
>> but rather to provide appropriate direction, oversight, and approval."
>>
>> Regards
>> Brian
>>
>> On 16/11/2016 23:38, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote:
>>> All the IETF positions have rules to be selected, nomcom, etc., and there is a great transparency on the process.
>>>
>>> However today we discovered that new members have been selected for IAOC committees.
>>>
>>> What have been the rules/process for that?
>>>
>>> One of the questions that have been discussed several times is the lack of transparency from the IAOC, and clearly here we have a new demonstration of that.
>>>
>>> I hope there is a clear statement from IAOC explaining the process.
>>>
>>> If that not happens, what is the process to appeal that decision, so I can follow it?
>>>
>>> We as a community, in my opinion, can’t keep going with this lack of transparency.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Jordi
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> **********************************************
>>> IPv4 is over
>>> Are you ready for the new Internet ?
>>> http://www.consulintel.es
>>> The IPv6 Company
>>>
>>> This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the use of the individual(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, including attached files, is prohibited.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>
**********************************************
IPv4 is over
Are you ready for the new Internet ?
http://www.consulintel.es
The IPv6 Company
This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the use of the individual(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, including attached files, is prohibited.
**********************************************
IPv4 is over
Are you ready for the new Internet ?
http://www.consulintel.es
The IPv6 Company
This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the use of the individual(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, including attached files, is prohibited.