Subject: [Iasa20] Warren Kumari's Discuss on draft-ietf-iasa2-rfc7437bis-08: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

From: Warren Kumari via Datatracker <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 04 Jul 2019 08:38:25 -0700

Warren Kumari has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-iasa2-rfc7437bis-08: Discuss

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)

Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-iasa2-rfc7437bis/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCUSS:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Don't panic - these should be trivial DISCUSSes to address, either by fixing
the text, or swatting me with a clue-by-four. I'm apologize that some of these
might be pedantic, but I think that this is an important document to get right
and make as clear as possible.

D1: 4.17.  Announcement of Selection Results
"If a selected volunteer, upon reading the announcement with the list
   of selected volunteers, finds that two or more other volunteers have
   the same affiliation, then the volunteer should notify the Chair who
   will determine the appropriate action."
Why is this limited ("If a selected volunteer...")? What if someone else
notices it? (as an example, the chair notices that they messed up during the
previous step?)

D2: 6.  Dispute Resolution Process
" 4.  After consultation with the two principal parties to the issue, the
arbiter decides on a resolution." Can this be changed to "After consultation
with the principal parties..."? Disputes get messy and I don't see what
specifying "two" adds here.

D3: :7.6.  3/4 Majority
   "A 3/4 majority of the members who vote on the question is required  for a
   recall."
"3/4 majority of the members who vote", or "eligible voting members"? If only
one person actually casts their vote does that equal 100%? I'm perfectly fine
if that is the intent, just wanted to make sure I'm reading it correctly. I
personally feel that everyone should be expected to vote on this - I dislike
the idea that people can abstain from voting because they don't want to get
their hands dirty, and instead wait for one of their colleagues to stand up and
make the hard decision. I also realize that this is already covered in the
general confidentiality discussions, but I suspect that there is / will be more
drama and intrigue around recalls - might it be worth reiterating that voting
is confidential and / or should they be secret ballots? I really don't want
anyone to feel uncomfortable voting to recall someone because they fear
repercussions....

----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Firstly, thank you for writing (updating? -bis'ing?)  this; it is an important
document. The below are suggestions to make the document even better / clearer,
but they are just that - suggestions...

1: "3.1.  Completion Due
   The completion of the annual process is due within seven months.
   The completion of the annual process is due one month prior to the Friday of
   the week before the First IETF.  It is expected to begin at least eight
   months prior to the Friday of the week before the First IETF."
Much of this document feels like a contract (e.g tone, list of requirements,
etc). Because of this I think it would be better to not have the same thing
stated in multiple ways - it raises the possibility of fighting over which of
the above is correct if there is a conflict between "clauses". I'd suggest
dropping the first sentence - it is difficult to correlate with the rest, and
doesn't really say due *from when*. Note that this is just a suggestion....

2: Like Barry I wonder why "The NomCom may choose not to include some names in
the disclosed list, at their discretion.", but I'm assuming that there is a
good reason (and there is already an open question).

3: 3.7.4.  Confirmation
"The confirming body must make its decision within a reasonable time frame."
What's reasonable? 24 hours? 6 months? Can this either be firmed up
(preferred), or, because it doesn't really *mean* anything as is, dropped?

4: 3.9.  Announcements
"As of the publication of this document, the current mechanism is an email
message to both the "ietf" and the "ietf-announce" mailing lists."
s/ietf/[email-masked]/ (and same for ietf-announce) ?

5: 4.3.  Structure
"The 10 voting volunteers are selected according to rules stated elsewhere in
this document." Can you add links / cross-references to things where you say
"elsewhere in this document"? I know it's annoying, but there are many more
readers than authors, so ...

6: "The prior year’s Chair is expected to review the actions and activities of
the current Chair and to report any concerns or issues to the NomCom Chair
immediately." Can you either add "NomCom" to "current Chair" or remove it from
"the NomCom Chair"? The fact that they differ implied that they are different
people (and tripped me up).

7: 4.12.  Milestones
"There is a defined time period during which the selection process is due to be
completed. " Please insert link to where the time period is defined (I think S
3.1).

8: 4.16.  Selection Process
The selection method must produce an ordered list of volunteers.
Er, why? (genuinely interested, not snark :-)) -- I can see why the *input*
must be ordered (so we can all verify the algorithm was run correctly), but why
must the output be ordered? E.g A new algorithm could be used where everyone is
put in a pool, and candidates deterministically ejected until only N remain.
This would result in an unordered, but publicly verifiable pool.  I personally
think that RFC3797 is awesome, but if you are allowing other methods I don't
understand this limitation.

9: 4.17.  Announcement of Selection Results
What happens if a volunteers affiliation changes during the process? I'm fine
leaving this undefined, but was wondering if it is "affiliation when entered"
or "affiliation before announcement", or... ?

10: 5.15.  Confirming Candidates
"A nominee may not know they were a candidate."
I'll happily cop to this being a pet peeve, but could you please change this to
"might not"? This sounds like an imperative...  and from now on, every time you
are on a plane, and hear "although the bag on the oxygen mask may not inflate,
oxygen is flowing to the mask" you can thank me :-P

11: S5.6 says "At all other times, a quorum is present if at least 75% of the
NomCom members are participating." while S 7.6.  says "3/4 Majority" Is there a
reason for using percentage vs fractions? I'm assuming not, but it raises
questions...

Thanks again for all the hard work,
W

---

From: Barry Leiba <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 4 Jul 2019 12:26:30 -0400

> specifying "two" adds here.

Adding my support to this DISCUSS point.

> anyone to feel uncomfortable voting to recall someone because they fear

I tripped on this one too, and came up with some justification for it
in my mind, which I no longer recall.  So I'm adding my support to
this DISCUSS point as well.

> understand this limitation.

As it's currently done:

1. We go through the list in order, selecting person 1, then 2, then
3, and so on.  If, say, persons 1, 3, and 5 have the same affiliation,
we skip person 5 and use 6 instead.

2. if someone has to drop off (is selected and decides not to serve,
for example), the "next" person who hadn't been selected replaces her,
and an unordered list has no "next" person.

Those two mechanisms only work with an ordered list.  It's certainly
possible to change things so that an unordered list is feasible, but
that would be a significant change.

> oxygen is flowing to the mask" you can thank me :-P

I share your pet.  Thanks.  :-)

Barry

---

From: Warren Kumari <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 4 Jul 2019 10:16:24 -0700

On Thu, Jul 4, 2019 at 9:26 AM Barry Leiba <[email-masked]> wrote:
[SNIP]

> that would be a significant change.

Oh. I must admit that I had misunderstood -- I had thought that if
person 5 had the same affiliation to removed them, and reran the
algorithm on the smaller pool. Guess I'd misunderstood.
I *personally* think that we should just always use RFC3797, but
seeing as we don't specify this, I'm still somewhat uncomfortable that
we list this as a requirement for the output of whatever is used --
but, I'm perfectly fine to be uncomfortable -- feel free to view this
as a comment and not part of the DISCUSS...

W

-- 
I don't think the execution is relevant when it was obviously a bad
idea in the first place.
This is like putting rabid weasels in your pants, and later expressing
regret at having chosen those particular rabid weasels and that pair
of pants.
   ---maf