[Iasa20] Warren Kumari's Discuss on draft-ietf-iasa2-rfc7437bis-08: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
Warren Kumari via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org> Thu, 04 July 2019 15:38 UTC
Return-Path: <noreply@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: iasa20@ietf.org
Delivered-To: iasa20@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 03C7F120136; Thu, 4 Jul 2019 08:38:25 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
From: Warren Kumari via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org>
To: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
Cc: draft-ietf-iasa2-rfc7437bis@ietf.org, Jon Peterson <jon.peterson@team.neustar>, iasa2-chairs@ietf.org, jon.peterson@team.neustar, iasa20@ietf.org
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.98.2
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: Warren Kumari <warren@kumari.net>
Message-ID: <156225470500.12060.450313037548275542.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Thu, 04 Jul 2019 08:38:25 -0700
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/iasa20/KGkGw2b8aarbib1m7zFPIzlwnI0>
Subject: [Iasa20] Warren Kumari's Discuss on draft-ietf-iasa2-rfc7437bis-08: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: iasa20@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
List-Id: Discussions relating to reorganising the IETF administrative structures in the so called IASA 2.0 project. <iasa20.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/iasa20>, <mailto:iasa20-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/iasa20/>
List-Post: <mailto:iasa20@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:iasa20-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/iasa20>, <mailto:iasa20-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 04 Jul 2019 15:38:31 -0000
Warren Kumari has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-iasa2-rfc7437bis-08: Discuss When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory paragraph, however.) Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-iasa2-rfc7437bis/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- DISCUSS: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 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.... ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 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." s/ietf/ietf@ietf.org/ (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
- [Iasa20] Warren Kumari's Discuss on draft-ietf-ia… Warren Kumari via Datatracker
- Re: [Iasa20] Warren Kumari's Discuss on draft-iet… Barry Leiba
- Re: [Iasa20] Warren Kumari's Discuss on draft-iet… Warren Kumari