Re: [ietf-nomcom] BCP 10 Update, adding an IAOC Advisor to the Nominating Committee

[Spencer Dawkins at IETF <[e-mail]>]

Hi, Michael,

On Wed, Aug 9, 2017 at 10:27 AM, Michael Richardson <[e-mail]>
wrote:

>
> Spencer Dawkins at IETF <[e-mail]> wrote:
>     > At Alissa Cooper's request, I put together a short draft that
> updates BCP 10,
>     > the Nomcom process, adding a reminder that Nomcoms can ask the IAOC
> to
>     > provide an advisor, and the IAOC can provide one.
>
> The other entities provide liasons, and I see that your document explains
> why
> an advisor is listed.    I understand that the word "advisor" is from
> BCP10,
> and allows the nomcom to add advisors to the nomcom. I'd call this an
> "import", because the nomcom pulls someone in.
>

Yeah. I'm kind of dancing here, because I'm trying to reuse terminology in
a new and exciting(?) way.

This document could

   - Remind the Nomcom that they will probably need help understanding what
   the IAOC does, so they should ask, OR
   - Tell the IAOC to appoint (let's call it) an Advisor, at the same time
   the IAB and IESG are appointing liaisons.

The first option is where I headed, because I tend to write permissive BCP
text ("BCP text is hard to get right").

The second option would probably appear in a new section that looks a lot
like https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7437#section-4.8, except that the
eligibility would be different. I'd be OK doing that, if it makes sense to
others.

For extra credit, https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7437#section-4.3 could
actually require that an IAOC advisor be named, at the same level of
"required" that the IAB and IESG liaisons are required. There would be more
text changes going this way (but, see below).

>
> The other liason are not nomcom decisions, and so there is some subtle
> distinction.
>
> It's also not clear to be that we want the NOMCOM to ask for an IAOC
> advisor,
> or if we the IAOC appoints someone.  The previous tradition was the IAOC
> appointed someone, and they gave us Ole even after he was no longer a
> seated
> IAOC member.
>
> As a voting member and chair, I found the IAOC (liason) very useful in
> explaining not only what the IAOC does, but also what the IAB and IESG do
> not
> do, even when sometimes IAOC activities get relayed via IETF Chair or IAB
> chair.  Many voting members are ignorant of the IAOC and sometimes look for
> characteristics in an IESG or IAB member that would be more appropriate
> for IAOC.
> So I strongly agree with always having an IAOC liason/advisor, even when
> not
> appointing someone directly to the IAOC.
>

I'm willing to make this position a requirement, if that's the right
answer. It's optional in the current draft.


> {nomcom: 2002,2012,2013. chair: 2014}


Thanks for your continued review and advice. I'm {nomcom: 2011 liaison}, so
appreciate people with more, and especially more recent, experience telling
me what they're thinking.

Spencer