Subject: Issues and Resolutions

From: avri <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2002 10:07:48 +0100

When the WG was first beginning its efforts, a list of open issues
was discussed on the mailing list.  The following is a copy of
that list with annotations on the resolution status of the item.

1. Accountability

The NomCom needs to be accountable to the IETF community through the
approving bodies.  Several methods of making the NomCom more
accountable have been suggested and need to be reviewed:

1.1 Should the NomCom publish a list of nominees at any point during the
     process?  If yes, then when and how?

Resolution:  No WG consensus on this issue.  Process left as is, i.e. a
list of nominees will not be published.

1.2 Should the slate of candidates be presented to the confirming bodies
     with supporting documentation?  Is yes, what documentation?

Resolution:  Nomcom to submit reasons for choosing candidate.  Text
added in 5.14.

1.3 Should the ISOC president be able to audit the process in order to
     investigate any alleged improprieties?  Is yes, how should the audit
     process be organized?

Resolution: Previous Chair represents the ISOC president as described
in section 4.11. Previous chair to report unresolvable issues to ISOC
chair who can appoint an investigator; described in section 5.8.

1.4 Should there be an automatic timeout for approval once the
     candidates have been presented to the confirming bodies.

Resolution: Discussion in WG seemed to be against allowing for
automatic approval of candidates. Process left as is.

1.5 Do the liaisons have a specific role  relative to accountability?

Resolution:  Yes, they are accountable to their respective bodies and
contribute to a final report on the nomcom to the general body. Text
added in 4.7.

2. Liaison

2.1 Should there be an ISOC liaison?

Resolution:  the ISOC is invited to provide a liaison but not required.
Text in 4.9.

2.2 What is the role of a liaison?

Resolution: Yes, specific discussion in 4.7.

3. Process Issues

3.1 Should NomCom information be archived?  If so, for how long and in
     what manner?  Is there a need to get legal advise on the issue of
     information archival?

Resolution:  The archive is for the benefit of the operating Nomcom.
Discussion in 5.16.

3.2 A definition of sitting member of NomCom was added to 2727bis
     section 1.  Is this definition appropriate?

Resolution:  Yes.  Moved to definitions section 2.

3.3 A timeframe for the appointment of the NomCom Chair was made
     explicit in 2727bis section 3.2.  Is this timeframe appropriate?

Resolution: the time frame was revised and made explicit both in the
document and in an appendix.

3.4 Explicit guidance regarding the timeframe for volunteering to serve
     on the nominating committee was added to section 3.4.  Is this
     guidance appropriate?

Resolution:  As part of making the timeline explicit, this was covered as
well.

3.5 Should the dates for selection of NomCom members be made explicit?

Resolution:  Yes, timeframe was made explicit.

3.6 Should the timescale be extended (by as much as one IETF,
     or by a few weeks) to allow for more consultation and for
     more effective review by the confirming bodies?

Resolution: Yes, timeframe was extended.

3.7a Explicit guidance was added to the process of selection the
     nominating committee member to 2727bis in sections 3.6, 3.7.  Is
     this guidance appropriate?

Resolution:  This was expanded upon.  Discussion can be found in
4.15 - 4.18.

3.7b How should disputes regard the selection of NomCom members be
     handled?

Resolution: Other then specifying that Secretariat is responsible
for determining qualification in section 4.15, a week was inserted
in the process to allow challenges to be made.  No specific procedure
has been added for resolving any challenges.  Is one needed?

3.8 On which lists should NomCom announcements be made?

Resolution:  IETF- Announce only

3.9 Should text be added to the process for recalling a NomCom member?

Resolution:  Yes, Text was added in section 5.7.

3.10 Is clarification needed for handling an interim vacancy that occurs
     late in a sitting NomCom's term; i.e. while the new NomCom is being
     formed?

Resolution: Yes, this issue is still under discussion.  One proposal
which reached rough consensus in the design team is included in the
current revision in section 4.2.  A discussion of the topic will be
sent to the WG list separately.

3.11 Should there be a required set of information provided with a
     nomination?

Resolution:  Yes, text was added in 5.10.

3.12 Should a nominee be required to update contact information during
     the process?

Resolution:  Not required, but was recommended in 5.13.

4. Qualifications for selection for the IAB or IESG?

4.1 Should there be term limits for the IAB or IESG?

Resolution: No, but the longevity of tenure was explicitly mentioned
as a criteria nomcom volunteers could use as a selection criteria.

4.2 Should ADs have experience as WG chairs?

Resolution:  While not explicitly required, a recommendation was added
stating that this experience is a good selection criteria.

4.3 Can a person, other then the IETF chair, serve on both the IAB and
     the IESG concurrently. (Note: This is not the process question
     involved in short term concurrent service by someone moving from one
     body to the other.)

Resolution:  While not specifically prohibited, a recommendation against
such a choice was included.

5. Should advice covering procedural issues, process, criteria and the
general accumulated wisdom of previous NomComs be included in the RFC?
Or should this information be collected in a different manner?  If so,
in what manner should it be collected? Possible areas for this
treatment include:

Resolution: Yes a section on advice based on previous experience was
appended to the document.

5.1 balance including issues of demographic distribution, skill set,
     industry sector, etc.

Resolution: the possibility of use of diversity as one criteria was
appended to the document.

5.2 continuity versus turnover

Resolution:  the possibility that continuity vs. turnover could be used
as a criteria was appended to the document.

-- 
Avri Doria
http://www.sm.luth.se/~avri/