Subject: Re: [Mtgvenue] document status, the role of the iaoc, and enforceability

From: Melinda Shore <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2017 22:00:12 -0900

Hi, Eliot:

Do you feel that the concerns you raised asking for greater
clarity about recourse in the case of disagreement about
venue selection have been addressed satisfactorily?  (ref:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mtgvenue/ZdeYcXv3adpQEuPYXfAvDabki24/?qid=31d4d393cac02fc490a7dbd4b8e8db3d)

Melinda

---

From: Eliot Lear <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2017 12:55:16 +0100

Hi Melinda and thanks for asking.

I do not yet believe this issue has been properly addressed.  I am
particularly concerned that normative requirements and recourse be
addressed because of the number of requirements listed as "mandatory". 
Dave asked me for text, to be fair.  Here it is:

At the end of 1.2, after the definition of terms:

"While this document uses these terms and these meanings, it remains the
responsibility of the IAOC to apply their best judgment.  In particular,
this document is not to be used as a means to appeal the IAOC's
decisions.  Individuals who disagree with IAOC decisions are invited to
participate in the NOMCOM process and to raise concerns with both the
IAB and the IESG in order that the matter may be addressed during member
selection."

Regards,

Eliot

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2017 07:23:48 -0800

Thanks for pursuing this.

On 1/27/2017 3:55 AM, Eliot Lear wrote:
> decisions.

Since this document is to be the normative basis for operation of the 
selection process, how can it /not/ be relevant to an appeal process?

That said, if the intent is to say that there is no appeal process, we 
probably should say that directly.

If the intent is to constrain what types of meetings-related decisions 
can be appealed, we should probably say that.

For example, in terms of pragmatic, once a contract is signed, an 
'appeal' would probably be counter-productive.  By contrast, appealing 
the assessment of a possible venue, after the early community query, 
would at least be possible.  (I'm trying to cite possibilities here. I'm 
not sure what specifics you have in mind.)

 > Individuals who disagree with IAOC decisions are invited to

Small editorial tweak:

    Individuals who disagree with IAOC decisions are invited to raise 
their concerns by providing input to the various IAOC member selection 
processes by the NOMCOM, IAB and IESG, as appropriate.

d/

-- 

   Dave Crocker
   Brandenburg InternetWorking
   bbiw.net

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 28 Jan 2017 08:07:27 +1300

> probably should say that directly.

We can't. https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4071#section-3.5 defines
the appeal process and we certainly should not override that here.
Wouldn't it be better to say

"While this document uses these terms and these meanings, it remains the
responsibility of the IAOC to apply their best judgment.  Any appeals
remain subject to the provisions of [RFC4071]."

   Brian

---

From: Eliot Lear <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 28 Jan 2017 14:22:24 +0100

> remain subject to the provisions of [RFC4071]."

I think it amounts to the same thing.  I'm just being explicit.  Here's
the relevant text:

   In no circumstances may the IAB or
   ISOC Board of Trustees overturn a decision of the IAOC that involves
   a binding contract or overturn a personnel-related action (such as
   hiring, firing, promotion, demotion, performance reviews, salary
   adjustments, etc.).

Eliot

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 29 Jan 2017 16:30:14 +1300

>    hiring, firing, promotion, demotion, performance reviews, salary

I think we agree on the substance. I am just leery about this document
restating things that are formally defined by an existing BCP.

The point about telling the NomCom your concerns about past nominees or
present candidates should be engraved on the archway at the entrance to the IETF.

    Brian

---

From: Eliot Lear <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 29 Jan 2017 12:04:54 +0100

Ok.  I can go with Brian's text, but retaining the comment about talking
to NOMCOM (it bears repeating always).

Eliot

---

From: Jari Arkko <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2017 17:39:44 +0200

I’m fine with Brian’s text, but I’d like a small tweak:

"While this document uses these terms and these meanings, it remains the
responsibility of the IAOC to apply their best judgment. The IAOC accepts
input and feedback both during the consultation process and later (for instance
when there are changes in the situation at a chosen location). Any
appeals remain subject to the provisions of [RFC4071].”

Jari

---

From: Melinda Shore <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2017 08:12:45 -0900

> appeals remain subject to the provisions of [RFC4071].”

Are there any objections or further tweaks to this language?

Melinda

---

From: Andrew Sullivan <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2017 12:40:48 -0500

Hi,

> Are there any objections or further tweaks to this language?

I don't exactly object, but since it refers to "these terms and these
meanings", I think we need to get clarity on the terms before I
understand what it would mean.  I think your other note therefore
needs to be answered first.

Best regards,

A

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
[email-masked]