--On Saturday, March 28, 2020 10:20 -0400 Barry Leiba <barryleiba@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > (Not picking Keith's comment, in particular: it was just > convenient to use for the reply here.) > > For those of you who think the IESG should not (or is not > allowed to) exercise judgment here and make a one-time > exception for this exceptional situation: > > Please advise how you think we can get the NomCom eligibility > question sorted out IN TIME to seat a 2020-21 NomCom, when we > normally need to ask for volunteers within the next 6 weeks. Barry, I think I've suggested a variation on what follows off-list, but, in response to your request: (1) Write an I-D and get it posted (tomorrow would be good, today better). Focus it exclusively on the Nomcom eligibility issue that has been under discussion on this list for weeks, with more messages than I can easily count. The shorter and more narrowly-focused the draft is, the better (I think some variation on Pete's draft is a good idea for multiple reasons, but this is not the time and doing it in haste would be unwise.). Obviously, you shouldn't ask me to write it :-) Speaking as someone whose personal preferences are probably in the rough, I don't particularly care which mechanism you choose as long as the draft makes it clear that this is a one-time thing to seat this (2020-2021) nomcom, that it cannot be used as a precedent for the 2021-2022 nomcom or anything else, and that it clearly and explicitly leaves 107 as a legitimate "First Meeting" at which the new IAB and IESG were seated. Beyond that, I just don't believe that the number and profile of people in the eligible pool are going to be significantly affected. I also believe that the number and profile of people from the eligible poor who actually volunteer will be affected even less. Those are anecdotal impressiona -- if any one has or can get data one way or the other, let's see it, but let's not block on waiting for it as having it show up in steps 3 or 4 below would be ok. (2) Provide in the I-D that it becomes effective the moment the IESG approves it. If there are appeals, we sort them out in parallel with collecting Nomcom volunteers and seating them. If an appeal changes the rules in a way that affects someone, we treat that as we treat any other situation in which a selected volunteer is unable to serve. (3) Give that I-D a week to season, nits to be picked, old issues to be rehashed, etc. If clear consensus emerges that whatever mechanism that was selected for the -00 draft was the wrong one, change the document (and make any other changes suggested by the discussion) and get -01 posted. (4) Issue a Last Call. On the theory that we need four week last calls only so the community has ample time to think about an issue that has not been thoroughly vetted and refined in a WG and noting that there is nothing substantive in the I-D (other than "immediate effect on IESG approval") that has not been kicked around (and around and around) on the IETF list for weeks already, make a one-time exception and announce the Last Call for two weeks, to be extended if discussions indicate that is really needed. That shortened time is a much smaller exception that making an IESG decision about nomcom eligibility without a document; it is consistent with the spirit of the 2026 provisions, and it should be a lot less controversial. (5) The IESG agrees, internally and in advance, that the document will be processed as soon as the Last Call ends, that any AD who starts nitpicking (not that anyone would) will be taken to the nearest bikeshed. So either the IESG signs off, with or without minor substantive adjustments, on whatever emerges from the Last Call, or we need either a bigger bikesheed or a distributed virtual one to accommodate all of us. (6) At that point, three weeks and some days into your six, we have an approved BCP and documented rough community consensus for the rules for this Nomcom. The RFC Editor gets to the document in a timely fashion, but how quickly they do it does not affect the process. _Variation_ Skip Step 3, issue a four-week Last Call as soon as the I-D gets posted, treat the comments that would have appeared during that week as LC comments with the expectation of posting -01 halfway through the LC period. That avoids making any exceptions and costs an extra week, but that is still less than the six week window you suggest we have. We could process Pete's document the same way, but the "discussed for weeks" option wouldn't apply, so we'd need four weeks to get it approved and _then_ a minimum of four weeks to approve the variance, so, on your six week calendar, that just doesn't work (as you have already noted). Or we could dither around for three or four weeks and _then_ use the shortness of time to justify the IESG making an executive decision. I hope (and expect) that we can all pull together on this and skip that option. best, john (6) (2) Twenty-four hours after the draft is posted
