Last Modified: 2003-11-03
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.
|Done||Initial set of issues to be addressed selected|
|Done||Revised I-D published|
|May 03||Revised I-D published, WG Last Call started|
|Done||Submission to IESG for publication|
Nomcom, Wednesday 9-11:30|
Minutes taken by Melinda Shore
There no changes to agenda
Jim Galvin reviewed changes in 2727bis-08.
In the past nomcom couldn't choose term length - they're told by the requesting body (IESG or IAB) [Scott Bradner and Mike St Johns]. this was disputed by Avri and Jim. 2727bis has said for a long time that nomcom can set duration.
Marshall asked about how firm this is - how do the checks and balances work?
Scott B. said that the IESG has decided in the past - the issue here is lack of clarity in the document.
Mike said that when two slots are open of different length, the nomcom chooses which candidate fills which slot, but the requesting body is responsible for requesting the durations in the first place.
Jim asked if the authority to adjust the term length rests only with the requesting body, and Scott said "yes."
Harald said it's a distinction without a difference and that reasonable people will do the right thing without specific guidance - that the document does not need clarification.
Scott said that he's not asking for a change.
Proposals for closing open issues (Text for changes contained in presentations)
Issue 1. Release of qualification statementsOld Text New Text
The objection was that while the description of desirable qualifications was to be disseminated there was no discussion on "when."
Should it be during the intial announcement or during solicitation?
Mike St John wants to withhold communication until confirmation done (as validation) - doesn't want public discussion during process, thinks it will create appealable problems.
Jim Galvin asked if it would be okay to make editorial changes. Also, what is meaning of information? Is it normative, and how is it used by nomcom?
Scott said that the information should be put out early, and that it's important for the community to know what the IESG and IAB suggested as criteria.
Harald also disagrees with Mike, asked if it would be correct to say that the description is from the IESG and IAB, identifying the source?
Lucy Lynch said it's chicken/egg problem, that if the information is mandatory it should be exposed early and that if it's advisory there's more wiggle room.
Mike: "expertise" may be a better term than "qualifications."
Avri asked if "expertise" would obviate Mike's objections.
Mike said he doesn't feel that strongly and would be willing to be overridden. If there's no benefit from exposing the information, why do it?
Scott argued again for early release of the information, said community may not agree with the IESG about qualification and that dialog should be possible.
Joel pointed out that the text already says that the qualifications are "desirable", not mandatory.
Jim said that the context is allowing people to choose whether they'd like to serve on nomcom or be considered for open I* positions.
Mike said the community should be asked for input on the qualifications.
Issue 2. Nomcom causes midterm vacanciesNew Text: Slide 1 Slide 2 Slide 3
Nomcom may propose moving a serving I* from one position to another. issue is whether mid-term procedures should be used to replace the perso being moved.
Mike asked to be aware of dependency on rule saying that no-one may serve on both IESG and IAB simultaneously. IESG and IAB chairs do the requesting of the Executive Director, who's responsible for asking the nomcom to select the replacement.
Harald and Scott think it's more specific than necessary, ask that the stuff about chair requests be dropped.
Jim asked if the issue is that the text in -08 is about making sure that mid-term vacancy rules are applied to the letter.
Mike pointed to Ted Hardie experience - he may have been able to serve on both, but voluntarily stepped down.
Nomcom cannot by itself choose to fill a slot that it's creating. Also distinguishes between IAB, where open position need not be announced, and IESG, where open position must be announced. Text in -08 applies only to openings created by the nomcom on the IAB.
Issue 3. Liaison initiation of problem resolution processOld Text New Text
When the liaison goes to their respective bodies, do they reveal information that's confidential to nomcom. Proposal is to have liaisons discuss among themselves and the chair rather than going back to their bodies.
Issue 10. Nomcom member recall
Replaces "quorum" with "2/3". Doesn't explicitly exclude the chair. Should it?
Mikes says should exclude person under consideration for recall.
Quorum is defined elsewhere in the text as 75%.
Issue 17. Must or should for completion of nomcom process
Old text says the confirmation process must be completed at least one month prior to first IETF. Suggestion to change the must to should. The proposal, on the other hand, was to leave as is.
Scott says that must implies existence of recourse and there is none.
Joel said job is "do it."
Mike said problem with text is that it's binding on process, not people, and suggested changing to musts on people.
Scott suggested changing to "due dates" rather than musts.
Issue 24. Term changeover timing for IAB
What does overlap mean for IAB, where there are no specific slots? When does IAB seat start, when does it end? The delta is the addition of IESG for existing text, addition of IAB sentence at end. How does this apply to midterm vacancies?
Jim said handled elsewhere - that's why it says "sitting members."
Mike suggests specifying that the proposed text is for sitting candidates, adding clause for midterm replacements.
Scott suggested that midterm appointments become effective as soon as possible after confirmation.
Issue: When does 27272bis become normative?
Proposal: Once it is published. Current Nomcom is free to use current BCP or new one for current process, but must use new process for new midterm vacancies.
Scott said that it should not wait for publication, suggested that it become effective when IESG approves it or when ISOC board accepts it.
Joel says the question of when it becomes effective is out of the hands of the working group.
Mike said the problem is that the nomcom may not conflict the old stuff, must document any changes to procedure.
Jim said it might be useful for IESG to make general statement about process documents. Mike thinks the document should include a statement about when it becomes normative.
Scott said that it would be harmful, but that it would be better for the IESG to make a statement.
Is the second bullet acceptable (current nomcom is free to use current or bis for any current process where there is no conflict)? Yes
Should it only be sent as a recommendation to IETF chair, or should it go in the document? Goes as a recommendation to chair.
Mike asked if the recommendation is binding. Joel said he hopes the IESG will make a statement about this when then document is announced.
Does the room agree that the IESG should make a statement? yes
Scott clarified that we're not sending it to the IETF chair, but the area director for the general area.
The intention is to close down the group but keep the list active once the document is approved by the IESG and accepted by the ISOC board. Scott said that according to recent history, the WG would not go poof until the document popped out of the RFC editor's queue.