IAB, IESG, IETF Trust, and IETF LLC Selection, Confirmation, and Recall Process: Operation of the IETF Nominating and Recall Committees
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 07 and is now closed.
(Alissa Cooper) Yes
(Barry Leiba) (was Discuss) Yes
Comment (2019-07-09 for -08)
The following discussion has happened (and thanks to all for having it). It's clear now what the exception referred to is, and I have below, a suggested fix to the text in Section 3.8, which is unclear enough to cause problems if the issue comes up: — Section 3.8 — However, the following exception is permitted in the case where the candidate for an open position is currently a sitting member of the IAB. It is consistent with these rules for the announcements of a resignation of a sitting member of the IAB and of the confirmed candidate for the mid-term vacancy created by that sitting member on the IAB to all occur at the same time as long as the actual sequence of events that occurred did so in the following order: 1. The NomCom completes the advice and consent process for the open position being filled by the candidate currently sitting on the IAB. 2. The newly confirmed candidate resigns from their current position on the IAB. 3. The IAB Chair (or the Managing Director, IETF Secretariat, if no Chair has been named or the vacancy was created via the departure of the IAB Chair) informs the NomCom of the mid-term vacancy. 4. The NomCom acts on the request to fill the mid-term vacancy. I didn’t understand what this is saying, and, therefore, didn’t understand how it’s possible to comply with it, when the announcement of an open position is required. I now understand that the exception is that the NomCom is allowed *not* to explicitly announce a vacancy on the IAB that's created by moving an IAB member to another body, because we assume that anyone who wants an IAB position has already put her name into the original pool. Given that (and I have confirmed it with meeting minutes from the discussion that led to RFC 3777 and from a chat with the editor of 3777), I would very much like to see the following clarification: OLD However, the following exception is permitted in the case where the candidate for an open position is currently a sitting member of the IAB. NEW However, an exception is permitted in the case where the candidate for an open position is currently a sitting member of the IAB. Because there is already a pool of candidates for a set of IAB positions, the NomCom does not a need to inform the community explicitly that one more position is becoming available, so par of the process can overlap. END If the decision is to not add that clarification, but to deal with it in an upcoming process revision, this comment will serve as documentation that we can point to in case the issue should come up. =================================== There are a lot of comments here, but they're basically all editorial. Some of them relate to the IASA2 changes, and I’ve tried to separate those out; please pay particular attention to them. General: While it’s not necessary, it would be helpful if the many places that say “elsewhere in this document” had internal section-number citations instead. ********************************* *** Begin IASA2-related edits *** This section of edits directly relates to the changes made for IASA2. — Abstract — The abstract says that it’s “based on RFC3777 and RFC7437”, but 3777 was obsoleted by 7437. Does it really make sense to mention 3777 in the Abstract? I think it isn’t, and suggest: OLD This document is based on RFC3777 and RFC7437 and has been updated to reflect the changes introduced by IASA 2.0. NEW This document is based on and replaces RFC7437, and has been updated to reflect the changes introduced by IASA 2.0. END — Introduction — Here I think it’s worth mentioning 3777 as part of the history, but “updates” isn’t strong enough for clarity. Perhaps: OLD This document is a revision of [RFC7437] that updates it to be consistent with the IASA 2.0 changes. RFC 7437 was based on [RFC3777] that consolidated and updated other RFCs that updated that document into a single specification. The result is a complete specification of the process by which members of the Internet Architecture Board (IAB) and Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG), some Trustees of the IETF Trust, and some Directors of the IETF Administration LLC (IETF LLC), are selected, confirmed, and recalled. NEW This document is a revision of [RFC7437] that updates and replaces it, and is consistent with the IASA 2.0 changes. RFC 7437 was based on [RFC3777] and its updates, and consolidated and updated the process into a single specification at that time. This document is now the sole and complete specification of the process by which members of the Internet Architecture Board (IAB) and Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG), some Trustees of the IETF Trust, and some Directors of the IETF Administration LLC (IETF LLC), are selected, confirmed, and recalled. END Does that work? We use “IETF LLC Director” (3 times) and “IETF LLC Board Director” (6 times) interchangeably; we should pick one and use it consistently. — Section 3.2 — The principal functions of the NomCom are to review each open IESG, IAB, IETF Trust, and IETF LLC Board position and to nominate either its incumbent or a superior candidate. As “nominee” is defined as someone being considered by the NomCom, and “candidate” is the one selected, this should say “and to select”, not “and to nominate”. Similarly for “candidate that is nominated” in the fourth paragraph and “to which he or she is nominated” in the last paragraph. (Note that “nominated” *is* correct in the fifth paragraph.) — Section 3.3 — or if a member or Director unexpectedly resigns. “if a member, a Director, or a Trustee” (and similarly in the middle of Section 3.4) — Section 3.4 — Confirmed IETF LLC Board Director candidates are expected to serve at least a three-year term, except if a nominating or selection body decides to use a shorter term to allow for initial staggered appointments. Given that the initial staggered appointments have already been made, the “except” part seems overtaken by events. Does it really make sense to publish that now, especially as the reference in the following sentence covers that situation? (And similarly for the next paragraph about Trustees.) For all three paragraphs, “a three year term” doesn’t match “candidates” in number. I suggest making them both singular, so “A confirmed IESG or IAB candidate is expected to serve at least a two-year term.” And similarly for the other two. Alternatively, we could change “a two-year term” to “two-year terms”, making them both plural. In both the Director and Trustee paragraphs, “additional guidance on terms length” should say “term length”. The term of a confirmed candidate selected according to the mid-term vacancy rules may be less than a full term (two years for IESG and IAB, three years for the IETF Trust and IETF LLC), as stated elsewhere in this document. Why repeat the term length here? I would remove the parenthesized bit. — Section 3.5 — 4. The term of the confirmed candidate will be either: A. the remainder of the term of the open position if that remainder is not less than one year or B. the remainder of the term of the open position plus the next two-year term if that remainder is less than one year. This is clearly written for the IAB and IESG, and hasn’t been changed to account for Directors and Trustees. — Section 3.7.3 — The sitting IESG members review the IETF Trust Trustee Candidates. There should be only one (as with the Board candidate in the next paragraph), and it shouldn’t be capitalized. — Sections 7.1.1 and 7.1.2 — These sections come from the merging of RFC 7776 into 7437, and are unnecessarily confusing. The way they are written makes it sound as if a Recall Committee Chair is appointed only for an Ombudsteam-initiated recall and not in the case of a community petition. Here’s what I suggest: As Section 7.1 already says that recalls initiated by the Ombudsteam follow 7776, there’s no need to say it again in 7.1.2. So how about this?: OLD The Ombudsteam process allows the Ombudsteam to form a recall petition on its own without requiring 20 signatories from the community. As defined in [RFC7776], the petition and its signatories (the Ombudsteam) shall be announced to the IETF community, and a Recall Committee Chair shall be appointed to complete the Recall Committee process. It is expected that the Recall Committee will receive a briefing from the Ombudsteam explaining why recall is considered an appropriate remedy. NEW The Ombudsteam process allows the Ombudsteam to form a recall petition on its own without requiring 20 signatories from the community. The petition and its signatories (the Ombudsteam) shall be announced to the IETF community, as with a community petition, and it is expected that the Recall Committee (see below) will receive a briefing from the Ombudsteam explaining why recall is considered an appropriate remedy. END Then we let 7.2 et seq explain the common parts of the recall process, including appointment of the Recall Committee Chair. — Appendix C — 4. There are no term limits explicitly because the issue of continuity versus turnover should be evaluated each year according to the expectations of the IETF community, as it is understood by each NomCom. Make it, “There are no term limits for the IAB and IESG explicitly….” There are now term limits for Directors and Trustees. — Appendix D — OLD 3. The Chair contacts the IESG, IAB, and Internet Society Board of Trustees and requests a liaison. NEW 3. The Chair contacts the IESG, IAB, Internet Society Board of Trustees, IETF Trust, and IETF LLC and requests a liaison from each. END *** End IASA2-related edits *** ******************************* These comments relate to original text or are otherwise not important for the IASA2 changes. I do wish we could avoid “IETF Trust Trustees”, but that ship has <trike>sunk</strike> sailed. — Section 3.1 (and 4.6 and 5.6) — Nit: The word “comprised” is correctly used as “the whole comprises its parts”, and is used correctly in Section 4.3. It’s used in the document three times incorrectly (“the whole is comprised of its parts”, for which the correct word is “composed”). Please change the three instances of “is comprised of” either to “is composed of” or “comprises” (I prefer the latter). — Section 3.4 — For confirmed candidates of the IESG, the terms begin no later than when the currently sitting members' terms end on the last day of the meeting. A term may begin or end no sooner than the first day of the meeting and no later than the last day of the meeting as determined This seems like an editing error. I would merge the two sentences: NEW For the IESG, the term of the sitting member ends and the term of the confirmed candidate begins no sooner than the first day of the meeting and no later than the last day of the meeting as determined END For candidates confirmed under the mid-term vacancy rules, the term begins as soon as possible after the confirmation. I would say “as soon as practicable”. It’s quite possible that it would be *possible* to begin a term, but there could be reasons to wait a bit. — Section 3.5 — 1. When there is only one official NomCom, the body with the mid- term vacancy relegates the responsibility to fill the vacancy While “relegates” *can* mean “delegates”, the general sense of “relegate” is negative ("We relegated it to the trash pile."). Better to use “delegates”, or simply “gives”. (Twice in this paragraph and once in Section 4.2.) — Section 3.6 — The NomCom and confirming body members will be exposed to confidential information as a result of their deliberations, their interactions with those they consult, and from those who provide requested supporting information. The list is not parallel (the third item doesn’t work). NEW The NomCom and confirming body members will be exposed to confidential information as a result of their deliberations and their interactions with those they consult, and from those who provide requested supporting information. END The NomCom may disclose a list of names of nominees who are willing to be considered for positions under review to the community “under review to the community” reads funny. I would move “to the community” to be after “list of names”. — Section 3.7.3 — The confirming bodies conduct their review using all information Their “reviews”, plural. and the confirming bodies' interpretation The bodies’ “interpretations”, plural. the NomCom must select alternate candidates for the rejected candidates. “alternative” candidates. — Section 4.1 — The completion of the selection and organization process is due at least one month prior to the Third IETF. This ensures the NomCom is fully operational and available for interviews and consultation during the Third IETF. As selection is normally done prior to the *Second* IETF now, is it worth saying that (not requiring it; the requirement as stated is fine)? Something like, “In practice, the selection process is generally completed prior to the Second IETF, so that the Second IETF can be used for organization.” I think it’s especially important to say this because otherwise it seems like the old and new NomComs are only required to overlap by one month, and Section 4.2 says they’re meant to overlap for “approximately three months”. — Section 4.2 — When the prior year's NomCom is filling a mid-term vacancy during the period of time that the terms overlap, the NomCom operate independently. “NomComs”, plural. — Section 4.6 — Any such appointment must be temporary and does not absolve the Chair of any or all responsibility for ensuring the NomCom completes its assigned duties in a timely fashion. Then where does it say how to permanently replace a NomCom Chair who really does have to leave permanently (say, death or incapacity, unexpected family issues, or even just is no longer willing to do it)? — Section 4.8 — This section doesn’t say anything about liaison appointment from the ISOC BoT; it probably should. — Section 4.10 — The prior year's Chair may select a designee from a pool composed of the voting volunteers of the prior year's committee and all prior Chairs if the Chair is unavailable. If the prior year's Chair is unavailable or is unable or unwilling to make such a designation in a timely fashion, the Chair of the current year's committee may select a designee in consultation with the Internet Society President. For clarity, “if the prior year’s Chair is unavailable,” because there are two Chairs under discussion. Why is it that the prior year’s Chair can pick someone else on her own, but the current Chair has to consult with the ISOC President to do the same thing? — Section 4.14 — Members of the IETF community must have attended at least three of the last five IETF meetings in order to volunteer. I hesitate to say this, given other ongoing discussions, but “attended at least three of the last five IETF meetings in person in order to volunteer” has to be clear here, especially as we now have formal registration for remote participants. Volunteers must provide their full name, email address, and primary company or organization affiliation (if any) when volunteering. Hm, number-agreement problem (plural volunteers and singular name, etc.), but it’s sticky to fix it and keep it gender-free. We could go with the custom of using “their” as gender-free singular and say, “Each volunteer must provide their full name….” Or we could make it all plural (which I think I like a tad better): NEW Volunteers must provide their full names, email addresses, and primary company or organization affiliations (if any) when volunteering. END — Section 4.16 — The pool of volunteers must be enumerated or otherwise indicated according to the needs of the selection method to be used. Maybe “otherwise annotated”? “Indicated” doesn’t seem like the right word. — Section 4.17 — the same affiliation, then the volunteer should notify the Chair who will determine the appropriate action. Comma before “who”, please. During at least the one week challenge period, the Chair must contact What does that mean? Is it meant to mean “during the challenge period, which is a least one week”? If so, just say “During the challenge period,” as the one week length has already been stated. If it means something else, what? — Section 4.18 — The Chair works with the members of the committee to organize itself in preparation for completing its assigned duties. I don’t think “itself” works here. I’d say, “The Chair works with the NomCom members to organize the committee….” — Section 5.15 — Rejected nominees, who consented to their nomination, and rejected candidates must be notified prior to announcing the confirmed candidates. The comma before “who” shouldn’t be there. — Section 6 — 3. The arbiter investigates the issue making every reasonable effort to understand both sides of the issue. This is better with a comma before “making”. — Section 7 — It applies to IESG and IAB Members, the NomCom appointed IETF Trust Trustees, and the NomCom appointed IETF LLC Directors. “NomCom-appointed” should be hyphenated both times, and also twice in Section 7.1. — Section 7.3 — More number disagreement (plural subject and “a member”). NEW The recall committee is created according to the same rules as is the NomCom, with the qualification that both the person being investigated and the parties requesting the recall must not be involved in the recall committee in any capacity. END — Section 7.7 — It would be worth adding, for absolute clarity, “The Recall Committee does not itself fill the open position.”
(Ignas Bagdonas) No Objection
(Deborah Brungard) No Objection
Roman Danyliw No Objection
(Suresh Krishnan) No Objection
Comment (2019-07-10 for -08)
* Section 3.4 The additional guidance on terms length and term limits for the IETF LLC Board is in Section *6* of draft-ietf-iasa2-rfc4071bis and not Section 5. Also s/all such members or Directors/all such members, trustees or Directors/ in order to be consistent with the rest of the document which differentiates between members and trustees.
Warren Kumari (was Discuss) No Objection
Comment (2019-07-07 for -08)
NOTE: My original position was DISCUSS - I'm changing it to NoObjection, but I'm still quite uncomfortable with this -- I view NoObjection as signalling that I'm comfortable with the document. "The IESG is expected to ensure that the documents are of a sufficient quality for release as RFCs, that they describe their subject matter well, and that there are no outstanding engineering issues that should be addressed before publication. The degree of review will vary with the intended status and perceived importance of the documents." (RFC3710). I view this document as very important, but as whole I don't think it is "of a sufficient quality for release as RFC" and that it "describe(s) their subject matter well" - there are some open questions / places where clarification would help. I fully understand the need to patch this to support IASA2 (and it's the right thing to do), and the reasoning behind not opening up the entire document for review and fixing all the bugs... The paragraph which says "This revision addresses only the changes required for IASA 2.0;should the community agree on other changes, they will be addressed in future documents." addresses basically all of my concerns, but I'd be **much** happier (and would be comfortable voting "Yes") if it were moved from the Introduction into the Abstract or made more prominent in some other way. --- ORIGINAL DISCUSS POSITION --- Don't panic - these should be trivial DISCUSSes to address, either by fixing the text, or swatting me with a clue-by-four. I'm apologize that some of these might be pedantic, but I think that this is an important document to get right and make as clear as possible. D1: 4.17. Announcement of Selection Results "If a selected volunteer, upon reading the announcement with the list of selected volunteers, finds that two or more other volunteers have the same affiliation, then the volunteer should notify the Chair who will determine the appropriate action." Why is this limited ("If a selected volunteer...")? What if someone else notices it? (as an example, the chair notices that they messed up during the previous step?) D2: 6. Dispute Resolution Process " 4. After consultation with the two principal parties to the issue, the arbiter decides on a resolution." Can this be changed to "After consultation with the principal parties..."? Disputes get messy and I don't see what specifying "two" adds here. D3: :7.6. 3/4 Majority "A 3/4 majority of the members who vote on the question is required for a recall." "3/4 majority of the members who vote", or "eligible voting members"? If only one person actually casts their vote does that equal 100%? I'm perfectly fine if that is the intent, just wanted to make sure I'm reading it correctly. I personally feel that everyone should be expected to vote on this - I dislike the idea that people can abstain from voting because they don't want to get their hands dirty, and instead wait for one of their colleagues to stand up and make the hard decision. I also realize that this is already covered in the general confidentiality discussions, but I suspect that there is / will be more drama and intrigue around recalls - might it be worth reiterating that voting is confidential and / or should they be secret ballots? I really don't want anyone to feel uncomfortable voting to recall someone because they fear repercussions.... -- END OF ORIGINAL DISCUSS POSITION --- Firstly, thank you for writing (updating? -bis'ing?) this; it is an important document. The below are suggestions to make the document even better / clearer, but they are just that - suggestions... 1: "3.1. Completion Due The completion of the annual process is due within seven months. The completion of the annual process is due one month prior to the Friday of the week before the First IETF. It is expected to begin at least eight months prior to the Friday of the week before the First IETF." Much of this document feels like a contract (e.g tone, list of requirements, etc). Because of this I think it would be better to not have the same thing stated in multiple ways - it raises the possibility of fighting over which of the above is correct if there is a conflict between "clauses". I'd suggest dropping the first sentence - it is difficult to correlate with the rest, and doesn't really say due *from when*. Note that this is just a suggestion.... 2: Like Barry I wonder why "The NomCom may choose not to include some names in the disclosed list, at their discretion.", but I'm assuming that there is a good reason (and there is already an open question). 3: 3.7.4. Confirmation "The confirming body must make its decision within a reasonable time frame." What's reasonable? 24 hours? 6 months? Can this either be firmed up (preferred), or, because it doesn't really *mean* anything as is, dropped? 4: 3.9. Announcements "As of the publication of this document, the current mechanism is an email message to both the "ietf" and the "ietf-announce" mailing lists." email@example.com/ (and same for ietf-announce) ? 5: 4.3. Structure "The 10 voting volunteers are selected according to rules stated elsewhere in this document." Can you add links / cross-references to things where you say "elsewhere in this document"? I know it's annoying, but there are many more readers than authors, so ... 6: "The prior year’s Chair is expected to review the actions and activities of the current Chair and to report any concerns or issues to the NomCom Chair immediately." Can you either add "NomCom" to "current Chair" or remove it from "the NomCom Chair"? The fact that they differ implied that they are different people (and tripped me up). 7: 4.12. Milestones "There is a defined time period during which the selection process is due to be completed. " Please insert link to where the time period is defined (I think S 3.1). 8: 4.16. Selection Process The selection method must produce an ordered list of volunteers. Er, why? (genuinely interested, not snark :-)) -- I can see why the *input* must be ordered (so we can all verify the algorithm was run correctly), but why must the output be ordered? E.g A new algorithm could be used where everyone is put in a pool, and candidates deterministically ejected until only N remain. This would result in an unordered, but publicly verifiable pool. I personally think that RFC3797 is awesome, but if you are allowing other methods I don't understand this limitation. 9: 4.17. Announcement of Selection Results What happens if a volunteers affiliation changes during the process? I'm fine leaving this undefined, but was wondering if it is "affiliation when entered" or "affiliation before announcement", or... ? 10: 5.15. Confirming Candidates "A nominee may not know they were a candidate." I'll happily cop to this being a pet peeve, but could you please change this to "might not"? This sounds like an imperative... and from now on, every time you are on a plane, and hear "although the bag on the oxygen mask may not inflate, oxygen is flowing to the mask" you can thank me :-P 11: S5.6 says "At all other times, a quorum is present if at least 75% of the NomCom members are participating." while S 7.6. says "3/4 Majority" Is there a reason for using percentage vs fractions? I'm assuming not, but it raises questions... Thanks again for all the hard work, W
(Mirja Kühlewind) No Objection
(Alexey Melnikov) No Objection
Comment (2019-07-11 for -08)
I agree with Barry's editorial suggestions. I am conflicted about "just fix IASA 2.0 related stuff" versa folding other updates. I think having multiple documents would make figuring out the current process difficult, but I appreciate the desire to limit changes done in this document.
Alvaro Retana No Objection
(Adam Roach) No Objection
Comment (2019-07-08 for -08)
Thanks to all the participants in the IASA2 effort for the work you've done in getting the related documents updated. I only have three minor comments in this document, where it seems to have been incompletely updated with regard to IETF Trust Trustees. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- §3.3: > e.g., if > the IESG, IAB, IETF Trust, or IETF LLC Board have reorganized prior > to this process and created new positions, if there are an odd number > of current positions, or if a member or Director unexpectedly > resigns. Suggest: "...if a Member, Director, or Trustee..." In particular, mixing the lowercase "member" with the uppercase "Director" is rather jarring. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- §3.4: > which it may assign a term of not more than three years to ensure > that all such members or Directors will not be reviewed at the same > time. Same comment as above ("Member, Director, or Trustee") --------------------------------------------------------------------------- §3.8: > 3.8. Sitting Members and Directors > > The following rules apply to nominees and candidates who are > currently sitting members of the IESG or IAB, or IETF LLC Board > Directors and who are not sitting in an open position being filled by > the NomCom. The title and opening paragraph of this section omit "Trustees," although the remainder of the section mentions Trust vacancies. I think we need to add mention of Trustees to both the section title and its opening paragraph.
Martin Vigoureux No Objection
Comment (2019-07-09 for -08)
rfc7437 says (Section 4.3) The Chair of last year's NomCom serves as an advisor Everywhere in the rest of the document "prior year's" seems preferred. And there is in fact an instance of that for the chair (Section 4.10): The Chair of the prior year's nominating committee .... so I would s/The Chair of last year's NomCom serves as an advisor/The Chair of the prior year's NomCom serves as an advisor/
(Magnus Westerlund) No Objection
Éric Vyncke (was No Objection) Abstain
Comment (2019-07-07 for -08)
After clarification by Alissa, I am changing my position from "No Objection with COMMENTs" to "Abstain" as I am comfortable with neither the document nor the "important but limited" fix approach. I will follow the majority of the IESG anyway and happy to move my position to "No record" if required. -éric Thank you all for the work put into this clear and well-written document. As I went recently through the process, I read the document with the eyes of someone going through the NomCom interview process as well as transition to an AD role. So, this is a review with bias. == COMMENTS == -- Section 3.5 -- Having been through the transition myself, I wonder why the IESG paragraph is so complex when compared to the IAB one: let's have the IESG terms also overlap during the First meeting. No hard feeling though, just easier / clearer for incoming AD. -- Section 3.6 -- Just wondering in which case(s) this would be desirable: "The NomCom may choose not to include some names in the disclosed list, at their discretion." -- Section 5.6 -- What happens if it is impossible to get the 7 voting members for a candidate selection vote? Of course, the vote can be postponed but not further away than the milestones. Should there be a link with section 5.7 (voting member recall) ? or another 'last resort' process? == NITS == -- Section 1. -- Please expand IASA (or add a reference) before its first use.