Re: BCP 10 Update, adding an IAOC Advisor to the Nominating Committee

[Robert Sparks <rjsparks@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Spencer -

The attempt to avoid the term liaison is not working well for me.

I think the biggest thing making you want to avoid that term are the requirements on liaisons to oversee process as you call out in the document. Instead of trying to to refashion terms, why don't you just change things so that it is explicit that only the IAB, IESG, and ISOC liaisons have that duty. Then you won't run into trouble with the "other unrepresented organizations" text you quote.

You can make it clear that for the IESG and IAB, seated members are required. Any other body can delegate outside its membership.

That _seems_ to me to be a more straightforward adjustment. What am I missing?

RjS

On 8/9/17 12:05 PM, Spencer Dawkins at IETF wrote:

Hi, Michael,

On Wed, Aug 9, 2017 at 10:27 AM, Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Spencer Dawkins at IETF <spencerdawkins.ietf@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
    > At Alissa Cooper's request, I put together a short draft that updates BCP 10,
    > the Nomcom process, adding a reminder that Nomcoms can ask the IAOC to
    > provide an advisor, and the IAOC can provide one.

The other entities provide liasons, and I see that your document explains why
an advisor is listed.    I understand that the word "advisor" is from BCP10,
and allows the nomcom to add advisors to the nomcom. I'd call this an
"import", because the nomcom pulls someone in.

Yeah. I'm kind of dancing here, because I'm trying to reuse terminology in a new and exciting(?) way. 

This document could

• Remind the Nomcom that they will probably need help understanding what the IAOC does, so they should ask, OR
• Tell the IAOC to appoint (let's call it) an Advisor, at the same time the IAB and IESG are appointing liaisons.
  

The first option is where I headed, because I tend to write permissive BCP text ("BCP text is hard to get right").

The second option would probably appear in a new section that looks a lot like https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7437#section-4.8, except that the eligibility would be different. I'd be OK doing that, if it makes sense to others.

For extra credit, https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7437#section-4.3 could actually require that an IAOC advisor be named, at the same level of "required" that the IAB and IESG liaisons are required. There would be more text changes going this way (but, see below).

The other liason are not nomcom decisions, and so there is some subtle distinction.

It's also not clear to be that we want the NOMCOM to ask for an IAOC advisor,
or if we the IAOC appoints someone.  The previous tradition was the IAOC
appointed someone, and they gave us Ole even after he was no longer a seated
IAOC member.

As a voting member and chair, I found the IAOC (liason) very useful in
explaining not only what the IAOC does, but also what the IAB and IESG do not
do, even when sometimes IAOC activities get relayed via IETF Chair or IAB
chair.  Many voting members are ignorant of the IAOC and sometimes look for
characteristics in an IESG or IAB member that would be more appropriate for IAOC.
So I strongly agree with always having an IAOC liason/advisor, even when not
appointing someone directly to the IAOC.

I'm willing to make this position a requirement, if that's the right answer. It's optional in the current draft.

 

{nomcom: 2002,2012,2013. chair: 2014}

Thanks for your continued review and advice. I'm {nomcom: 2011 liaison}, so appreciate people with more, and especially more recent, experience telling me what they're thinking.

Spencer