Subject: [ietf-nomcom] past nomcom chair starting next process

From: James Galvin <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2009 11:45:11 -0500

-- On February 20, 2009 9:43:53 AM -0600 Spencer Dawkins 
<[email-masked]> wrote regarding [ietf-nomcom] Two (small) 
I-Ds now available for discussion --

> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-dawkins-nomcom-dont-wait-00
> .txt.

I'm dubious about the success of this.  My gut reaction is we're 
creating more process with little gain.

The document says this:

   This document proposes that the Past NomCom Chair, not the current
   NomCom Chair, will issue the announcement of open positions and the
   solicitation for names of volunteers on behalf of the NomCom Chair
   who will be named by the ISOC President.  This allows the search for
   NomCom Chair and volunteers to proceed in parallel.

This is all well and good, and I'm extremely sympathetic to the issue, 
but if we go down this path then we also need to include process for 
dealing with the complete set of timing issues.

Suppose it takes a really long time to find the new Chair?  How much of 
the process does the old Chair continue to execute?

What if a new Chair is not found?  On the one hand, we don't deal with 
this situation now.  On the other hand, we do need to deal with it in 
this case because we have to state a completion scenario.

I think what bothers me most is why isn't the solution to his problem 
that the new Chair has to be identified sooner?

Jim

---

From: Danny McPherson <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2009 10:07:11 -0700

On Feb 20, 2009, at 9:45 AM, James Galvin wrote:

>
> I think what bothers me most is why isn't the solution to his  
> problem that the new Chair has to be identified sooner?

Because identifying capable, acceptable, willing chairs is
a complex process that is itself serialized?

-danny

---

From: "Spencer Dawkins" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2009 11:36:15 -0600

Hi, Jim,

From: "James Galvin" <[email-masked]>
> <[email-masked]> wrote regarding [ietf-nomcom] Two (small) I-Ds
> now available for discussion --
>
> I'm dubious about the success of this.  My gut reaction is we're creating
> more process with little gain.

That's certainly one of the questions we need to answer :-)

I was asked to put the draft together because the timeline this year ended 
up being
WAY later than what RFC 5078 had proposed. The draft recommended
sending out the announcement and solicitation on 2008/05/25, and Joel sent
out his announcement and solicitation on 2008/07/15 - nearly two months
later.

Maybe that was an anomoly. I hope so. On the other hand, the RFC 5078 dates
are almost exactly the same in 2009-2010, so we'll know if there's a problem
by 2009-05-24... :-|

> This is all well and good, and I'm extremely sympathetic to the issue, but
> if we go down this path then we also need to include process for dealing
> with the complete set of timing issues.
>

I tried to be pretty clear in the document that I was only proposing the
announcement and solicitation, but I can certainly imagine that readers see
that as precedent for other tasks. If that turns out to be a common reading, 
that's unfortunate.

> this situation now.  On the other hand, we do need to deal with it in this
> case because we have to state a completion scenario.

That's an interesting question, but it is bigger than the question I was
trying to answer in my draft.

> I think what bothers me most is why isn't the solution to his problem that
> the new Chair has to be identified sooner?

Well, that would be lovely, of course... :D

Thanks,

Spencer

---

From: James Galvin <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2009 12:50:36 -0500

-- On February 20, 2009 10:07:11 AM -0700 Danny McPherson 
<[email-masked]> wrote regarding Re: [ietf-nomcom] past nomcom chair 
starting next process --

> a complex process that is itself serialized?

Yes, but how does this improve that?  I see more failure scenarios, not 
a significant improvement.

I'll concede that it might give you more time but then I'll ask again: 
why isn't the "solution" to start sooner?

Jim

---

From: Danny McPherson <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2009 11:02:39 -0700

On Feb 20, 2009, at 10:50 AM, James Galvin wrote:

>
>
> -- On February 20, 2009 10:07:11 AM -0700 Danny McPherson <[email-masked] 
> > wrote regarding Re: [ietf-nomcom] past nomcom chair starting next  
> process --
>
>>
> Yes, but how does this improve that?  I see more failure scenarios,  
> not a significant improvement.

Please enumerate?

It seems to me that if the ISOC President is searching for
a NomCom chair, whatever the process, and is well aware of
the time constraints involved, this only improves the situation
when a chair has not yet been selected.

It also "primes the pipe" for the incoming chair.

> I'll concede that it might give you more time but then I'll ask  
> again: why isn't the "solution" to start sooner?

I could argue that if the chair is selected considerably earlier
in the process, there are more variables that could inject stability
issues (e.g., employment and time availability) would be more of a
factor.

This recommendation eases constraints of one of the longest
gates in the process, of course other problems exist.  I think
the goal of this exercise is to make things suck less..

-danny

---

From: Russ Housley <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2009 14:47:34 -0500

>I think the goal of this exercise is to make things suck less..

Yes.  The goal is incremental improvement, not massive redesign.

Russ

---

From: James Galvin <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2009 15:21:03 -0500

-- On February 20, 2009 2:47:34 PM -0500 Russ Housley 
<[email-masked]> wrote regarding Re: [ietf-nomcom] past nomcom 
chair starting next process --

> Yes.  The goal is incremental improvement, not massive redesign.

Sorry but I don't see much of an improvement.  If you're having that 
much trouble finding a Chair, how is it that a "few" more weeks makes a 
difference?  At least there's no guarantee.  You essentially have the 
same problem.

If you still don't find a Chair now you've started a process and how 
are you going to finish it?

In any case, the more I think about it, the more I like Scott Bradner's 
suggestion.

What this document proposes is "off-loading" two of the administrative 
tasks from the new NOMCOM chair: announcing the "open" positions and 
beginning the collection of eligible NOMCOM volunteers.  It occurs to 
me that these are ideally suited to be handed off to the Secretariat, 
not to the previous NOMCOM chair, precisely because they are just 
administrative.  Also, we don't have to consider NOMCOM to have 
officially started until the new NOMCOM chair is announced, again 
because we declare these two actions as administrative and put them on 
the Secretariat (ideally these should just be something on the web 
site, particularly the collection of volunteers, so it's not burdensome 
at all).

Jim

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 21 Feb 2009 10:47:06 +1300

> that the new Chair has to be identified sooner?

I concur. I watched this particular sausage being made a couple of times
while I was IETF Chair, and I think this would be a better solution
in the end. Especially in years when the ISOC President finds it difficult
to find a willing victim; more time will help in that case too.

    Brian

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 21 Feb 2009 10:56:04 +1300

Sorry to follow up my own post.

It now seems to me we should do both things.

1. Bring forward the date when the search for the new NomCom chair starts.

2. State that IF the new chair has not been announced by X date,
THEN the current chair will kick things off as in Spencer's draft.

    Brian

---

From: "Spencer Dawkins" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 21 Feb 2009 07:35:11 -0600

To the group...

The first version of this draft did include conditional language ("IF the 
new chair has not been announced by X date"). I removed it because I could't 
state "X date" unambiguously (the RFC 5078 timeline is based off actual IETF 
face-to-face meeting dates, which do move around some from year to year), 
and because it seemed less complex to just have the Past NomCom chair do it 
every year.

I can make the changes Brian suggested, but I'd like to know whether other 
people support this suggestion.

Thanks,

Spencer

> _______________________________________________
> ietf-nomcom mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-nomcom
>

---

From: "Jeffrey A. Williams" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2009 19:58:14 -0800

Spencer and all,

  My suggestion is to eliminate the face-to-face considerations
given the current economic situation.  It could be reinstated at
some time in the future if and when the world economy recovers
sufficiently to justify such.

> >> to find a willing victim; more time will help in that case too.

Regards,

Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 284k members/stakeholders strong!)
"Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" -
   Abraham Lincoln
"YES WE CAN!"  Barack ( Berry ) Obama

"Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is
very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt

"If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B;
liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by
P: i.e., whether B is less than PL."
United States v. Carroll Towing  (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947]
===============================================================
Updated 1/26/04
CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS.
div. of Information Network Eng.  INEG. INC.
ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail
[email-masked]
My Phone: 214-244-4827