Last Modifield: 07/15/2002
This working group will consider all such clarifications and suggestions and produce a revision to RFC2727. However, the basic mechanism of selection, confirmation, and recall will not be changed by this group. It is only concerned with the details of the current process.
The input document will be draft-galvin-rfc2727bis-00.txt.
|MAY 02||Initial set of issues to be addressed selected|
|JUN 02||Revised I-D published|
|JUL 02||Revised I-D published, WG Last Call started|
|AUG 02||Submission to IESG for publication|
Notes taken by Elliot Lear Meeting Chaired by Avri Doria Jim Galvin discussed the differences between draft-ietf-nomcom-rfc2727bis-01.txt and -02.txt Several Issues were brought up during this discussion: One issue that was discussed was whether the definitions of the roles for advisors and liaisons reflected current practice or not. There was a disagreement on this point between 2 previous NomCom chairs: Don Eastlake and Avri Doria. Jim maintained that the current text reflects the intent of RFC2727. The old version indicated explicitly who votes on what, while new version specifies that only voting volunteers vote on candidate issues and everything else is open to other members. The -02 version lists explicit responsibilities of each role. This is new text. The issue needs to be reviewed by the WG list. Phil Roberts brought up an issue about filling replacements. The current random selection process is renewable, but needs clarification about how to reinitiate the system. Right now someone can figure out who the next choices would be. Jim pointed out that this is covered in the -02 draft with an additional week to reset the random process. WG participants were asked to review the latest draft as it contains new language in many areas. After the review of the -02 draft, open issues that had not yet been resolved were discussed. The first issue involved the qualification for volunteering with the basic question being was attendance at 2 out 3 of the last IETF meetings a sufficient criteria. Comments: Joel Halpern observed that we seem to have a problem of not getting enough experienced IETF participants on the nomcom. We need to encourage more participation. He didn't like the idea of 2 pools. Maybe 4 out of 6 IETF meeting would be better then 2 out of 3? Don Eastlake observed that a jury pool model would not work because the commitment involved was too substantial. Dave Allen commented in favor of allowing people who had attended many IETFs to be included, the big N proposal, even they did not meet the recent attendance requirements. He further commented that the process could arbitrarily select people from one area in the same way it has it has selected people from one company. Mark Allman agreed that the 2 out of the last 3 rule is insufficient. Would like to see some weighting of rules for including management experience. Would like to see something that has a little bit longer time scale. George Swallow commented that after 2 IETF meetings he didn't have a clue as to how the IETF was organized. Michael Richardson, currently on the NomCom, commented that the current NomCom doesn't suffer from lack of experience. But if you've been to one, missed one, and then went to a third, then that's a different problem. Things aren't all that broken. He believes that self selection already occurs, based on whether people believe they know what's going on. Don Eastlake stated that as long as the nomcom has a finite number of volunteers there will always be some bias in some way or another. It's okay for it to be imperfect. Not sure he'd be happy with an IETF that ran purely smoothly. Harald suggested two changes: - add a statement to the oral tradition 'if you don't know how the IETF works don't volunteer for NomCom. - change from 2 out of 3 IETFs to 3 out of 5 IETFs A hum was requested on the 3 out of 5 versus of 2 out of 3. The 3 out of 5 was the unanimous view of the room. John Klensin commented that there were 2 reasons to volunteer. 1 is obligation. 2 is that one has an ax to grind. He's worried about the "don't volunteer" folk self selecting out in favor of the ax grinders. A hum was requested on adding a statement to the oral tradition of "don't volunteer if you don't know what's going on." The group seemed to lean toward adding the statement. The chair reminded the meeting that a hum is just an indication. This all goes out to the mailing list. Jim Galvin asked what goal is the group trying to achieve? Harald responded that since he made the suggestion he should say something. One property of mailing list discussions is that they fly off in all directions. It's easier to discuss when you have a specific proposal. So he made a specific proposal. The problems that is to be solved is that we want people who have more experience just than 6 months participation volunteering for the NomCom. Eliot asked why 3 out of 5? Why not 4 out of 6 or 5 out of 7, etc? Jim mentioned pool of people increases as you go from 2/3 to 3/5, etc. Avri responded that we don't really know that. George Swallow mentioned that though he hummed in favor of 3/5 he would also support requiring a minimum of having attended 5 meeting ever, AND attendance at 2 out of the last 3 meetings. Avri pointed out that this that would bias the selection procedure in favor of long time participants. Harald said we should ask the secretariat for numbers. Avri asked if the room favored adding a requirements for increased number of meeting attended in the past as George recommended. The room was not in favor of the proposal. Ron Da Silva had a last comment regarding language stating that it's important to encourage people to understand the process. He suggested that the oral tradition indicate where people could learn about the process and recommend that they then reconsider volunteering. -- The next issue involved limiting the number of participants from a single group or company In the WG list discussions to date, there was no consensus on definition of company, group, or organization, but but there seem to be consensus that the maximum number should be 2. Was a strict definition of control group necessary and should other diversity or lack there of be considered? The meeting reviewed some very legalistic language that had been proposed on the list. Comments: Michael Richardson thought that it seems like a good idea. Understanding that this would be done only at selection time, and that subsequent acquisitions or change of employment would not impact membership. Ross Callon asked if all the various wings of the U.S. or other governments would count as one organization. John Klensin commented that when ANSI went down this path for balloting, their first cut labeled the U.S. as a single entity, but that would have cut attendance to nothing. Same issue involving large companies with separate divisions. Ross Callon likes the rule. Doesn't mind U.S. government agencies being counted separately. Don Eastlake doesn't expect perfection. It is unfortunate that we have to do something like this. Where there appears to be substantial bias or the appearance such that people bend over backwards to avoid it, then public oversight is important. If people try to game the system then people will notice. When the pools were small, this was impossible. If you have 100 volunteers where 10 or more are from the same company, the probability of 4 or more from the same company is 1.3%. With multiple large companies, that probably increases to 5% or so. John Klensin is suspicious of measuring probability with reality. We should say that packing behavior is inappropriate. We should consider a mechanism for challenging a list of selected members, and a way to challenge the company to indicate whether it was packing or not. Jim Galvin responded there is in fact a one week challenge period after the announcement, but there is no process for actually challenging. Don Eastlake believes the criteria needs to be public and challengeable, but only for a brief period of time so that you have a stable nomcom. Not sure there is a corporate conspiracy, it's more word of mouth. E.g. he works for a company that gives bonuses based on standards activity. Perhaps there are companies who would remunerate based on their involvement. Wants some sort of rule like what is proposed. John Klensin would prefer to rely on integrity of individuals. Steve Silverman asked "as a consultant, how does he fit in"? Avri responded one would state affiliation, so it's up to the individual, and is subject to challenge. Lou Berger commented we have an existence proof that community pressure does not work. He seconds the rule. No subjectivity to the proposal. No bias to particular organizations. Joel Halpern stated that there are other dimensions as to why we need such a rule. If companies believe it is possible to pack the nomcom, then they will try in order to protect themselves. And we need to make it clear that they can't. John Klensin completely agrees with Joel. But he doesn't think this is the right solution. He disagrees that public pressure doesn't work. We're creating lawyer bate through the limitation as it is worded. If we introduce a formal procedure then the courts will decide. Harald said that at the time of volunteering a person states their affiliation, the person doing the picking rejects people who have the same string in their affiliation. Put the onus on the individual, not on the process. Joel says this proposal has too much detail, but agrees it should be made mechanical. Marshall Rose claimed that we've already crossed the lawyer bate threshold. Joel Halpern argued that John's point is valid, but that we can fix it by stating that this is a best effort and not perfect. John Klensin responded that if a company decides that it's in its corporate advantage to game the procedure, they will do it. The rule is too fuzzy. Get people to self identify, again putting the onus on the individual, and then use a challenge process. Eliot Lear was concerned about both the perception and the potential reality of a government packing the nomcom. Depending on the administration of a government this could be the case. Jeff Hultzman stated it doesn't hurt us if more than 2 folk from the same government can't serve. We're not ANSI. Avri stated that seems to be a consensus for some sort of a rule, choosing the middle path of having people self identify and remove themselves. Asked if that was correct? Marshall Rose pointed out that there are 2 issues. - Level of formality. - Voluntary or mandatory removal. Don Eastlake said we need a rule that can be executed by a person, not a computer. Lou Berger said he was confused by the summary. Informal or formal? If formal, what's the enforcement mechanism? Avri said she believed legalistic language was more a problem than an advantage. Lou Berger said we ask the ISOC counsel to help us here. Avri asked if we want legal language? Lou Berger said we still need to ask the ISOC to review the language to keep us from getting into trouble. Harald informed the group that the language of the present RFC has been reviewed and that the language of the next RFC will be reviewed prior to adoption. Eliot added that once you have legalistic language, then you need lawyers to interpret it, and then you have blood in the water. -- The next issue involved the question of whether there should be a process for resolving challenges over volunteer selection? The current draft allows time is allowed for challenge but does not indicate a specific process. Especially if control group notion is added, challenges might be more likely. The question is whether resolving any challenges should be left to nomcom chair? Comments: Jim Galvin responded that to be precise, there is no ADDITIONAL process. Anyone can move for a challenge, and they use the ordinary IETF appeals process, with the exception is that the challenge is to be directed at the IETF chair. It's also worth noting, there's no defined time period for the IETF appeals process. Eliot Lear commented that maybe there should be some time frame. Marshall asked Harald how long would it take for him to resolve a challenge? Harald that it depends. If the challenge was specious, up to 2 weeks. If it was a serious issue, it would be harder to bound. There has never been a challenge to deal with. Marshall responded that we have a serious problem, because the IETF appeals process wasn't designed for this purpose. Harald said we might want to add language saying that makes it possible for the nomcom to operate with those who were not challenged. Jim pointed out that the NomCom is permitted to continue forward, but they cannot submit a slate to a confirming body while a challenge is in process. Dispute resolution process has a time limit of 2 weeks. Avri pointed out that using the IESG means the possible candidates could become the judges in this process. Steve Coya suggested going right to the IETF chair and not involving the entire IESG. Harald commented that he objects. Lou Berger suggested it go from the NomCom chair to the ISOC President. Jim Galvin suggested that the NomCom chair runs the process, so it would have to be the ISOC president that handled a challenge. Don Eastlake pointed out that it would not necessarily be an adversarial process in every case. The chair should be given opportunity to correct mistakes. A Hum was in favor of Lou Berger's proposals. --- The next issue involved mid term vacancy procedures A new procedures has already been documented but has not seen much discussion. The new procedure involves a 3 month overlap for handling midterm vacancy. There would be no overlap for handling regular process. Comments: Scott Bradner noted that there is potential for a great deal of confusion. Perhaps it would be better for a seat to sit idle. Harald mentioned that a possible vacancy of both members of an IESG area could be a serious problem. In fact it would be disastrous to have 6 month vacancies. Scott Bradner mentioned that the NomCom only acts when the IESG or IAB informs them of a vacancy. Jim responded that the IAB or IESG didn't have a choice as to which NomCom filled a vacancy. But the IESG or IAB could choose to not to fill a vacancy by not informing the NomCom. Leslie Daigle pointed out that we must be mindful of what happened in the routing area last year. Jim Galvin agreed that we should have overlapping NomComs, but that is a slippery slope. Phil Roberts commented that if you have two NomComs going at the same time, one of which is filling a midterm vacancy and the other is filling the other vacancy in the same area, it seems strange, and this might lead to poor dynamics between the two people who are selected. If you reconstitute a NomCom after they've gone dormant, there is more of a risk of having to find replacement volunteers. A hum was requested in favor of leaving wording of document as is. A hum was inconclusive about adding a restriction about serving in consecutive 15 month NomComs. Scott Bradner pointed out that question was perhaps confusing. Eliot Lear addressed Phil Roberts' point saying that hopefully the old NomCom would fill midterm vacancies prior to the new NomCom submits its slate. --- The next topic concerned the recall procedure of IESG/IAB members, and how it gets initiated The current procedure is susceptible to DOS attack. A mechanism needed to protect against this is needed. The proposal presented involved requiring that 2% of average attendance sign a petition in order to initiate the current recall procedure. Comments: Don Eastlake thought the procedure should be 2% of number of QUALIFIED people according to the 2 out of 3 meetings rule, and that it should not be based only on attendance. Harald supported Don's change. John Klensin indicated that if we are going to have petition lists the list should be public. Steve Silverman asked if anyone had done this? [NO] He suggested that 3 people instead of one, would be ok. But questioned requiring 40? Marshall explained that this procedure was as added as a last minute afterthought. Surprising no one has invoked it. Harald asked how many people are needed? Thinking about the end game, is there a situation where someone should be removed from office without 40 people being able to agree. Should you really want to have that person removed? David Putzolu supported the proposal and agreed that it was useful to only count nomcom eligible signatures, as otherwise one could have random people sign recall petitions. Avri pointed out that the proposal called for the petition signers to be qualified to serve on the NomCom A hum was generally in favor of the proposal The meeting was adjourned.