Increasing the Number of Area Directors in an IETF Area
draft-dawkins-iesg-one-or-more-05
Yes
(Alia Atlas)
(Alissa Cooper)
(Barry Leiba)
(Benoît Claise)
(Brian Haberman)
(Jari Arkko)
(Martin Stiemerling)
(Pete Resnick)
No Objection
(Ted Lemon)
Abstain
Recuse
(Spencer Dawkins)
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 04 and is now closed.
Adrian Farrel Former IESG member
Yes
Yes
(2015-01-08 for -04)
Unknown
I reviewed this and provided feedback during IETF last call (which is, IMHO, correct behaviour for IESG discussion of process RFCs). All of my comments have been accommodated.
Alia Atlas Former IESG member
Yes
Yes
(for -04)
Unknown
Alissa Cooper Former IESG member
Yes
Yes
(for -04)
Unknown
Barry Leiba Former IESG member
Yes
Yes
(for -04)
Unknown
Benoît Claise Former IESG member
Yes
Yes
(for -04)
Unknown
Brian Haberman Former IESG member
Yes
Yes
(for -04)
Unknown
Jari Arkko Former IESG member
Yes
Yes
(for -04)
Unknown
Kathleen Moriarty Former IESG member
Yes
Yes
(2015-01-06 for -04)
Unknown
Thanks for your work on this draft. I have some comments inline to consider: I'm wondering if the word "significantly" can be dropped in the following sentence of the introduction as I didn't think the intent was to increase overall size of the IESG. In particular, this change is not intended to increase the size of the IESG significantly. Just a nit as I was having trouble reading this sentence (first sentence of the last paragraph of section 2) - remove first instance of 'that' and would recommend changing "is" to "remains", change from: Note that the requirement in RFC 3777 ([RFC3777], BCP 10) that the Nominating Committee review (approximately) half the positions for the IESG each year is unchanged. To: Note the requirement in RFC 3777 ([RFC3777], BCP 10) that the Nominating Committee review (approximately) half the positions for the IESG each year remains unchanged.
Martin Stiemerling Former IESG member
Yes
Yes
(for -04)
Unknown
Pete Resnick Former IESG member
Yes
Yes
(for -04)
Unknown
Stephen Farrell Former IESG member
Yes
Yes
(2015-01-06 for -04)
Unknown
A pure nit, that can be entirely ignored: - is "the IESG continues to be responsible for specifying the positions that Nomcom would fill each year" quite correct? I know we discussed before that the IESG's job descriptions aren't quite requirements-to-be-met but rather our idea of what's needed, and that it's up to nomcom to decide if they agree or not. Maybe it'd be better to say the IESG need to tell nomcom what they think is needed each year and avoid any imperatives (in this case "specifying").
Joel Jaeggli Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2015-01-06 for -04)
Unknown
consensus status should be set to yes.
Ted Lemon Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -04)
Unknown
Richard Barnes Former IESG member
Abstain
Abstain
(2015-01-07 for -04)
Unknown
This draft is unnecessary process-wonkery. The cited RFCs provide at best an oblique suggestion, rather than clearly normative rules. Certainly nothing as clear as the provision in RFC 3710 that "the IESG can ... change the number of ADs assigned to an area". If we need an RFC for this, we also need an RFC to fix the assertion in RFC 2026 that "RFCs can be obtained from a number of Internet hosts using ... gopher", since AFAICT the RFC editor has dropped support for that protocol.
Spencer Dawkins Former IESG member
Recuse
Recuse
(for -04)
Unknown