Subject: Drsft minutes

From: Avri Doria <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2002 18:06:17 +0200 (MEST)

First let me apologize for the lateness of the minutes.  While I received
them in a very timely manner from kre and Ron, I was traveling and my
laptop was giving me trouble.  So I have just now finished collating the
two sets.

a.
----

The Nomcom WG meeting was chaired by Avri Doria and minutes were
recorded by Robert Elz and by Ron Bonica.  

The agenda was reviewed and there were no changes requested.

The WG was reminded that the charter and the milestones mandated
this WG to be short lived,  I.e. this should be the only WG meeting
at an IETF (in the best of all possible worlds). 

Avri, acting as a proxy for Jim Galvin, reported on the changes to RFC
2727.   These are listed in the draft itself (section 7) and in the
meeting slides.

Several of the changes prompted the  meeting discussions outlined below.  These
discussions are referred back to the design team.

- On the issue of the IAB/IESG deciding whether to fill a vacant
  position.

Q: What is a mid-term vacancy

A: anything after Nomcom starts

Q: That means IAB/IESG can decide that Nomcom isn't liked, and just
    hold over a vacancy that occurs early in Nomcom process for the
    following Nomcom.

A: Yes, could happen.

Q: Maybe need division into year halves. If a vacancy occurs early in
    year current Nomcom decides, later in year, either the next Nomcom
    must handle or the IAB/IESG has discretion.

A: Perhaps the draft should include advice to that effect

- Robert Elz: On #8: much of what is in rule 7 (changes) would be better in
    rule 8 - so that what a nomination must contain is in the section
    about making a nomination, not in the one about sending a request
    for nominations to be made.

Avri: will take back to editor.

- #12 - On the issue of archives:

Eric Gray: Issue with that is - chair is supposed to be able to provide info
    for the next Nomcom, is the chair intended to be part of that.  

A: the archive goes away, chair keeps mental records.

The next agenda item was a discussion of Open issues, i.e. issues for
which no changes were yet made to the draft.

- Length of Process & Timing This has been discussed a lot on the list
  and was discussed further during the meeting.

Robert Elz (kre): Spoke to  Brian Carpenter's issues, as understood from his
    email. It should be possible for the Nomcom to finish before
    Christmas, to avoid being slowed down by that interruption,
    hence start earlier. Then confirming body can operate in late
    Jan/Feb.

Christian Huitema: agrees with this, too much pressure on confirming
    body to simply agree otherwise process fails, but disagrees with
    kre's interpretation of Brian's point.

Bob Hinden: wants to give confirming body enough time, but not so
    much that they have time to reject candidates because they don't
    like them, so don't want too much time for confirming body -
    Nomcom should make the decisions, it should be rare for confirming
    body to push back, except where a process problem is identified.

Harald Alverstrand: - giving confirming bodies more time is good,
    giving Nomcom itself more time is bad.   His experience - pressure
    on Nomcom & amount of time it takes increases over time, adding
    more time will just give Nomcom more time to use up.  Don't
    increase time available for Nomcom itself.

Fred Baker: don't limit Nomcom's time. They are already working
    fast. Nomcom has had to deal with having too little time, if it is
    constituted too close to 3rd IETF, it has no time to prepare.

Avri: current draft attempts to allow for enough time.

Ron Bonica: should be specific about how much time the confirming body has
   
Avri: isn't that in there already?

kre: hard to figure out from the draft - info might all be there but
    very hard to find.

Avri: yes, probably need to make that more clear

Eric: agrees with Fred - timing of IETF meetings themselves isn't
    fixed - need to base timings on 1st IETF (end of Nomcom) not the
    3rd IETF, as that makes Nomcom duration random

Avri: OK.

Avri: Time period - 2 months for Nomcom to work, is that OK? There was
no dissent on this point.

Time periods need to be more explicit.  This is to be passed on to the
editor.

Harald A: time that Nomcom is active should include at least one IETF
    meeting needs to be made explicit

Avri: that can probably also be concluded from the draft now, just
    isn't explicit - more explicit times are needed.

- The next issue to be discussed was that of accountability - of the
Nomcom to community &/or confirming bodies. 

The question is does more need to be said about this in the draft?
What does accountability mean? 

Christian Huitema: It is part of the process, like picking a jury.   

Avri: Does liaison responsibility have any effect

Christian: Do you mean can they be sued?

Avri: No...   Is there an assumption that the liaisons would let the
    community know if Nomcom is going off the rails.

Christian: can't cover situations like this

Steve Hanna: Expect of Nomcom what we expect of juries - by taking
    cross section, we expect that we will get people who have common
    sense, will represent a reasonable cross section of what typical
    IETF members might want.  Sometimes might get non-representative
    grouping - perhaps some members who are a bit cracked, but perhaps
    that is representative...   This is probably the best we can
    achieve.   More accountability is likely to discourage people from
    wanting to serve.  Unlike jury, Nomcom is volunteer, not imposed,
    need to be able to attract people.

Avri: Asked if the general consensus of room is that accountability as
    it is in draft is fine.  No dissent from the room.

- The next issue to be discussed was whether the  names of nominees
should be published?   This was originally proposed as a means for
confirming body to have an idea what was coming, an issue that has
been handled by fixing the timing.  In meantime this issue has gained a
life of its own. 

The current proposal for publishing names was made by Harald on the
WG list.

Bala Rajagopalan: thinks names should be published for a different
    reason. Need people to have some idea that process is fair - how
    Nomcom works isn't visible outside community.  More than just
    names, the questionnaire filled in by nominees should be published
    as well.  Need to de-mystify the process.
  
Avri asked if recommendation was that  all nominees whether accepted
or not should be published. 

Answer: No only those who agree to go forward, should be
    published, and their views.

Avri pointed out that the questionnaire is not a mandated part of the
    process and it is up to the Nomcom whether questionnaireds are used
    or not.

Joseph Hui - should publish names, shouldn't want privacy
  
Eric - should have at least first right of refusal, keep name off
    the list if not interested.   An issue with questionnaires -
    people tend to be more or less careful/honest depending upon the
    expected audience.  If comments are to be public, then all will be
    similar, and depend upon what company lawyers allow them to say.
    Confidentiality helps.

Harald A: Commented that anyone who expects to run should dare to show face in
    public - in several cases, positions filled by arm twisting,
    convince people who didn't really want the job.  Would not like to
    see process where unable to get best people to serve.   Wouldn't
    trust anyone who wants his job. 

Leslie Daigle: supported idea in plenary last time - for purpose of ensuring
    max input to nominating committee.   But concerned at notion of
    publishing questionnaire.  This turns process into an election.  Will
    result in campaigning.

Bob Hinden: agree with both previous people - comfortable with publishing
    names of people who have agreed to run, but not questionnaires.

Christian H: The risk is that selection tends to be old boys club.
    But process has protection - Nomcom selection process - that
    avoids this problem.  The past nominations contained some surprises -
    shows this.  Point that Leslie made is more important - by
    publishing names, we are trying to take control of Nomcom
    process, to make it an election.  Notion of who is a candidate is
    very fuzzy, Fred Baker used to say the reason he was a candidate
    was that he didn't say no loudly enough,.  If list published, then
    important part will be who is not on the list - and questions
    when people are not on list, what the reason is that they declined.
    Should not publish names.

Bala - if person is selected, then should publish their
    responses to what they would do.  Have more people than are
    needed, that's why Nomcom exists.

Mike St Johns:  One of the  problems, is that some people refuse to oppose
    others; 'if X is running, I won't run against them.'  In the past,
    as chair, had to apply pressure to get people to be considered,
    especially when against a strong incumbent who wanted to
    continue.   But is not strongly opposed to publishing list that simply has
    everyone who was ever suggested. I.e. Harald's proposal.

Fred Baker: responded to earlier comment questioned amount of arm twisting.
    Huge amount of arm twisting is required - have to think about the
    amount of work being required.  Fred's experience - in 95 was
    working in multiple areas, with technical basis - when asked if he
    would be IETF chair. Fred had to drop lots of technical
    work which changed Fred's career track.  There may be no one actually
    willing to make a change like that.  Not many qualified people,
    looking for management people from a community of engineers.
    Also have other criteria - want people from Asia/Europe, have
    phone calls at odd times of the night, fly more than requires.

Eric - don't want people who don't want the job, or who don't think they are
    qualified, to be on list without their consent

Ron Bonica  - publish names of people who have accepted to be candidates.
    Also agree with Leslie - don't publish Q's.

Bala: - response to Fred - after someone has agreed to run, then
    want to know more about the people who are being considered (after
    selected).

Dave Crocker: Has been tracking topic closely - doesn't know what problem
    is being  solved.   Usually make changes to add
    features or fix bugs - fears that these changes are based upon
    abstract notions of fair process.   Have been times that people
    would have liked to know the names, as clearly they didn't get
    enough feedback.  That kind of extra feedback would be better late
    in the process, publish only smaller list if any.

Christian: if we do anything, must know why.  So far just two reasons.
    So people can audit that Nomcom is looking at wide enough set of
    candidates, already have protection for that.  Other for people to
    provide ongoing input - e.g. 'don't want that asshole to be included' -
    and we don't want that kind of input, that would be not relying on
    Nomcom, but 2nd guessing.

Harald: what problem is solved?  Being blunt - one problem is that
    current Nomcom process divides IETF into 2 groups, one of about
    100 are asked to state their opinion, and have a fair idea who
    candidates are.  The rest, about 6000, who have no idea at all - would
    like to move a little away from that.   Problem is that need to
    make a small amount of change so the rest of the people get
    considered.

Leslie: problem being solved is ensuring appropriate input to Nomcom, proposed
    implementation is publishing list, which might not be the best
    way.  Shouldn't be trying to 2nd guess the Nomcom.

kre: When nominees announced - info on those is given, so don't really
    need announcement of qualifications of selected candidates, more
    than is already provided for.  On getting extra input for Nomcom,
    my experience as outsider has been that nominees (once confirmed)
    are either people that were obviously one of the possibilities, or
    people I had never heard of, and so couldn't provide input about,
    even if their name had been announced.

Avri asked for hum to determine if status quo should be maintained or
if names should be published (in some form) - with  a process to be defined.

The hummming sounded equal.  No consensus for change at this point.
The discussion should be continued on the list.

- Next issue discussed was whether anything further needed to be
included on the role of liaisons

kre: should say that liaison should be bi-directional - should make
    it clear that liaison should report to community.

Thomas Narten: should write down what liaisons do, have a fair
    amount of running code now, but the doc says nothing.

Avri asked if this should this be in the form of rules or as oral
tradition.

Thomas: should be rules.  Not just that previous ones have done/not done.

General room consensus that doc should say more.

- The next issue  involved controversial decisions

Avri: The Nomcom know when they are doing something controversial and the
    Nomcom is now being told they should be ready to back up their
    decisions.

    Concerning other issues from list.

    Does the room think that the oral tradition section is a good
    section, i.e. is it good to list practice without rules? And
    should anything else be covered?

Eric Gray: Be a good idea to spell out what the procedures approve of.
    Controversy in 4 categories - not clear which, expect it to be
    controversial and it is, and it isn't, and expect it not to be and
    it isn't, or is.  Has seen some more controversy than expected,
    and vice versa.  Also can be surprised about what kind of proof of
    process is required.

Avri: some of this covered by dialog with confirming body, and can also be
    covered if liaisons have more to do.

Fred Baker: On what he believes is the place of rules.
    Tend to armchair quarterback - make a rule that bad things can't
    happen.  That's hard to do.  Don't want to go there.  Want to talk
    about expected goals and outcomes.  Where process clarification is
    required, set that down - but in general, want to depend upon the
    people appointed to sue good judgment, can't predict what will be
    required.

Avri: interpret that as desire for more oral tradition and fewer
    rules.  Asked if that was that the general opinion.

The room indicated agreement.

Avri asked if anything else should be added to oral tradition section.
There was no response.

The meeting was then opened to other issues participants might have.

kre: brought up a definitional issue concerning 'usual definitions' of
    non-voting members and what that meant in relation to items where
    the text appeared to be giving them a vote.

Avri: thinks that all members should vote on all issues of Nomcom practice.

Bob Hinden: only voting members set the rules, and vote

Thomas Narten: agrees - only voting members vote, except where
explicit.

Avri: should clarify when non-voting  members get to vote

kre: no, it isn't when that need to be made explicit, but how.

Issue needs to be reviewed by the list and by the design team.

Milestones Review:

We probably won't make July 02 for revised ID & WG last call,
but August might be possible. Won't make Aug 2 for submission to IESG, but
should be done before next IETF meeting.

kre: will this mean that this draft isn't ready for next Nomcom, will
    be well underway by then - have to either tell next Nomcom to
    follow an I-D, or publish earlier than looks possible, or leave
    these changes for the following Nomcom.

Avri asked the room if we should we tell powers that be to follow 
process outlined in the current draft - especially with regard to timing.

The room agreed with this.

There was comment that the new Nomcom should follow the drafted
procedures to the extent that they don't contradict existing doc.

Avri to Harald (in his general area AD capacity): how do we do that?
    Is fact you have heard it enough?

Fred Baker: you might want to tell chair of Internet Society.

Avri: Good idea.  Who is that?

Fred raises his hand.

Meeting adjourned 10:37

---

From: Robert Elz <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 13 Aug 2002 18:28:38 +0700

Date:        Mon, 12 Aug 2002 18:06:17 +0200 (MEST)
    From:        Avri Doria <[email-masked]>
    Message-ID:  <Pine.GSO.4.21.0208121800550.10750-100000@delta1>

Since I brought up this at the meeting ...

  | The meeting was then opened to other issues participants might have.
  | 
  | kre: brought up a definitional issue concerning 'usual definitions' of
  |     non-voting members and what that meant in relation to items where
  |     the text appeared to be giving them a vote.
  | 
[...]

  | Issue needs to be reviewed by the list and by the design team.

This is (I think) a minor point that can be handled by some wordsmithing
of the doc, though I'm not sure exactly what - it would be better suggested
by someone who has experienced the process I believe.

There are a few places where the doc says (words like - this case
is from section 5 point 1).

        Any member of the committee may propose a rule for adoption by
        the committee.  The rule must be approved by both the voting and
        non- voting members of the committee according to its
        established voting mechanism.

The issue is that the non-voting members are required to approve (or not)
things, according to the committee's established voting mechanism.

One would assume (and it was confirmed at the meeting) that the normal
established voting mechanism excludes the non-voting members.  In fact,
one would wonder why they were labeled "non-voting" if they normally voted...

So, how exactly do the members who don't vote participate in the
established voting mechanism vote?   And how would that be according to
the established voting mechanism?

One solution for this would be to not have the non-voting members involved.
That would be a change to the substance of the draft as it is though.
I don't know if it would be a change to the way nomcoms have worked.

Another would just be to find some wording that works to allow the non-voting
members to vote in this particular case (and the other few like it).
I assume that's what the text was trying (and failing) to say - that is,
the non-voting members get to vote as if they were voting members, for this
issue.   And then the vote is taken in the same general way as it would
have had only the voting members participated (not the same as then, as
there are more votes now, more eligible, ...).

kre

---

From: John Morris <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 13 Aug 2002 13:24:27 -0400

One fairly simple solution to the voting/non-voting confusion would be to:

1.  scrap the term "non-voting member"
2.  create a new term for liaison members, perhaps "liaison members"
3.  add a paragraph on voting that sets out exactly what is desired, such as:

"The Chair and all Liaison Members shall not vote on the selection of 
candidates, but may participate in (a) all committee discussions 
concerning candidates, and (b) all procedural decisions of the 
commitee, according to its established voting mechanism."

This language is merely an illustration, and may not reflect the 
final division of exactly what votes the Chair/liaisons should have. 
But if we can articulate the line to be drawn, we should be able to 
make that line clear with language similar to this.

John

At 6:28 PM +0700 8/13/02, Robert Elz wrote:
>----------------------------------------------------------------
>To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription
>manager: <http://lists.elistx.com/subscribe>