IAB and IESG Selection, Confirmation, and Recall Process: Operation of the Nominating and Recall Committees
RFC 3777

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 09 and is now closed.

(Harald Alvestrand) Yes

(Steven Bellovin) No Objection

Comment (2003-10-01 for -** No value found for 'p.get_dochistory.rev' **)
No email
send info
The recall section makes no provision or even suggestion that the Recall Chair verify the putative signers.

Section 5, Point 12 suggests that the committee consult with the sitting members of the IAB and IESG.  I think that consultation with WG chairs should be suggested.

(Randy Bush) No Objection

(Bill Fenner) No Objection

(Ned Freed) No Objection

(Ted Hardie) No Objection

Comment (2003-09-30 for -** No value found for 'p.get_dochistory.rev' **)
No email
send info
I note that the oral tradition section indicates that no person should serve on
both the IESG and IAB, except the IETF Chair who serves on both by
definition.  I believe that there is some lack of clarity on whether the IAB
Chair's role ex officio in the IESG means she "serves on", and that this is
probably not the place to resolve that or go into the liaisons from one
body to the other.  To capture the same thing, how about:

"No person should serve both on the IAB and as an Area Director, except
the IETF Chair whose roles  as an IAB member and Area Director of the General
Area is set out elsewhere".

(Russ Housley) No Objection

(David Kessens) No Objection

(Allison Mankin) No Objection

(Thomas Narten) (was Discuss) No Objection

Comment (2003-10-07)
No email
send info
>        If a voting volunteer member is recalled the committee may
>        choose to proceed with only 9 voting volunteers at its own
>        discretion.  In all other cases the Chair must repeat the random
>        selection process including an announcement of the iteration

>        prior to the actual selection as stated elsewhere in this
>        document.

The above implies to me that the nomcome is required to find a
replacement for a resignation, but is not for a recall. Shouldn't the
nomcom be allowed to also not replace resignations? I.e, I assume that
the nomcom would have  the option of filling or not filling any nomcom
opening, regardless of how it occurs.

>        It is consistent with this rule for the nominating committee to
>        choose one or more of the currently open positions to which it
>        may assign a term greater than 2 years in order to ensure the
>        ideal application of this rule in the future.

s/greater than 2 years/of up to 3 years/

(right now, in theory, nomcom could pick the length of time, though I
suspect a lot of folk would be surprised if this ever happend...)

>        committee.  The addition must be approved by all members of the
>        committee according to its established voting mechanism.
>        Advisors participate as individuals.
>

"all members" wording implies everyone must agree. What is the intent
here? Is it "must be approved by a quorum of the committee according
to its established voting mechanism"? Note: similar wording appears
elsewhere.

>        conducted.  A member may recalled if at least a quorum of all
>        committee members agree, including the vote of the member being
>        recalled.

What does this mean? simple majority if there is a quorum? (I ask
because in most cases this document doesn't proscribe rules, leaving
that to the nomcom to decide.)

>    4.  Confirmed candidates are expected to serve at least a 2 year
>        term.

not consistent with interim appointments

>        First, when there is only one official nominating committee the

add comma after committee

>        As of the publication of this document the current mechanism is
					       ^
>        an email message to both the "ietf" and the "ietf-announce"
>        mailing lists.

comma above


>         None of the Chair, liaisons, or advisors vote on the selection
>         of candidates.  They do vote on all other issues before the
>         committee unless otherwise specified.

s/specified/specified in this document/? (what is the intent?)

>    6.   A Chair, in consultation with the Internet Society President,
>         may appoint a temporary substitute.

Better to say "... for the Chair position".

>         If they can not resolve the issue between themselves liaisons

comma after themselves.

>         The confirmation process must be completed at least one month
>         prior to the First IETF.

s/must/should/ other parts of the document imply should on this topic.

>         The term of a nominating committee begins when its members are
>         officially announced.  The term ends at the Third IETF (not
>         three meetings) after the next nominating committee's term
>         begins.

ambigous wording. Reword:

         The term ends at the Third IETF (not three meetings), that is,
         the IETF after the next nominating committee's term begins.

(Jon Peterson) No Objection

Comment (2003-10-02 for -** No value found for 'p.get_dochistory.rev' **)
No email
send info
The Introduction fastidiously notes that the organization of the IESG is outside the scope of the document. However, in so far as Section 3 bullet 3 explains that half of the IESG positions are reviewed by the NomCom per year, would it make sense to mention at a high level that IESG members serve in specific Areas, and that the review process is staggered to preserve continuity and institutional memory within Areas? This seems like an important detail of the NomCom process to omit, even if it might change as the IETF changes. I'd note that Section 3 bullet 3 already has a caveat about future IESG reorganization, so I'm not sure how it would hurt to talk about the current IESG structure, in the interests of fully depicting the existing practice.

(Bert Wijnen) No Objection

(Alex Zinin) No Objection

(Margaret Cullen) (was Discuss) Abstain

Comment (2003-10-02)
No email
send info
EDITORIAL:

>Abstract
>
>   The process by which the members of the IAB and IESG are selected,
>   confirmed, and recalled is specified.  This document is a
>   self-consistent, organized compilation of the process as it was known
>   at the time of publication.

Very weak...  I also don't think that the last sentence is true,
as this document changes some things.  Suggestions: Add a bit
more information (i.e mention the Nominations Commitee?) and remove
"as it was known at the time of publication".

The section numbering in this document doesn't match usual
conventions.  This makes it harder to refer to sections in this
document unambiguously.

>  3.  One-half of each of the then current IESG and IAB positions is
>      selected to be reviewed each year.

s/One-half of each of/One-half of/
s/positions is/positions are/

>      The intent of this rule to ensure the review of approximately
>      one-half of each of the IESG and IAB sitting members each year.

s/one-half of each of/one-half of/

>  4.  Confirmed candidates are expected to serve at least a 2 year
>      term.

This isn't always true.  Replacement candidates may serve
terms of less than two years.

>      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 by the mutual agreement of the currently
>      sitting member and the confirmed candidate. The confirmed
>      candidate's term may overlap the sitting member's term during the
>      meeting as determined by their mutual agreement.

How does this apply to IAB terms?  In the case where there is
more than one new IAB member, I don't think that it is
defined which IAB member each new member is replacing.
>In section 4, subsection 7:
>        Liaisons from the IESG, IAB, and Internet Society Board of
>        Trustees are expected to review the operation and executing
>        process of the nominating committee and to report any concerns

There is a mention here of a liaison from the ISOC board.
But, there in section 4.3 there is a list of nomcom members
that indicates how they are selected, and the ISOC liaison
is not listed.

The organization of this document seems to result in repeating
a lot of information.  There are also a lot of forward 
references.  This makes it difficult to find the part(s) of
the document that apply to a particular part of the process.