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

Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie> Fri, 25 August 2017 00:31 UTC

Return-Path: <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>
X-Original-To: ietf-nomcom@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf-nomcom@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4CAEF1329CD for <ietf-nomcom@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 24 Aug 2017 17:31:20 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.3
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.3 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cs.tcd.ie
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id g4mEHalWRbKB for <ietf-nomcom@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 24 Aug 2017 17:31:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mercury.scss.tcd.ie (mercury.scss.tcd.ie [134.226.56.6]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2961B132377 for <ietf-nomcom@ietf.org>; Thu, 24 Aug 2017 17:31:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mercury.scss.tcd.ie (Postfix) with ESMTP id E0980BE55; Fri, 25 Aug 2017 01:31:14 +0100 (IST)
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at scss.tcd.ie
Received: from mercury.scss.tcd.ie ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mercury.scss.tcd.ie [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Fzz_G-_bH-L2; Fri, 25 Aug 2017 01:31:13 +0100 (IST)
Received: from [10.244.2.100] (95-45-153-252-dynamic.agg2.phb.bdt-fng.eircom.net [95.45.153.252]) by mercury.scss.tcd.ie (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id C5B6CBE53; Fri, 25 Aug 2017 01:31:12 +0100 (IST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cs.tcd.ie; s=mail; t=1503621073; bh=oNy9g62ATefwMCKg6VJPW522FKvYCM1FQmw4gTVoP04=; h=Subject:To:Cc:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=EQV8LrXMTaJxvnmtL2t+kvmZTFLvQgNB9AqEoS4knYhPT/Qm6AonhpxBPWoq/73bA pDR+x5m6RlC6ecE5GiDzweiFeQ13CByfQgkm+7Z1QSiUMrGXcwT6vePFVoNf20bFNV hqH911lu2EyyyF6b185YI2ZGihulKDqMDMu31U7U=
To: Spencer Dawkins at IETF <spencerdawkins.ietf@gmail.com>
Cc: NomCom-Discussion <ietf-nomcom@ietf.org>
References: <CAKKJt-cd2-tS=3QnvRcsDKcZ8=o5Z98wUr-=tp8OeP9J1M0M8g@mail.gmail.com> <4622.1502292425@obiwan.sandelman.ca> <CAKKJt-fxhFnnK3T2nVj2bD=Ve7z6L0oJFjYFqBb59TusJDwFzQ@mail.gmail.com> <1250df52-b5b3-4f71-bab1-790d156af1e9@nostrum.com> <5f26388a-93aa-7133-6973-de669a9bb2f4@gmail.com> <CAA=duU2hn-6=OzvZrfuz0agvzxvV0euXP4nsnjdksUpsnAyfJQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAKKJt-chkcrJRfCU1_MHb47H7GZNHafkbwVZKNsxh2pQzXyiYA@mail.gmail.com> <6e62d88a-ba0e-18eb-3a45-88851b6e7c46@joelhalpern.com> <CAKKJt-dJ2Z1wsqXveg7+PR13d2bH61pHR753gEamwqWv4f+hKQ@mail.gmail.com> <0c83a20d-325b-d928-a157-638fcaf81adf@cs.tcd.ie> <CAKKJt-dsUt-bwtFiDY3Lek52QnmJT6z4O9+Bv3Py1He1vMW3-A@mail.gmail.com> <2e2ecf8a-e843-795b-f96b-b183e2b3a84c@cs.tcd.ie> <CAKKJt-crXRBdu2+vVzuptk-rknTFsHCg=xhPM6YqsD-e=7_7dw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>
Openpgp: id=D66EA7906F0B897FB2E97D582F3C8736805F8DA2; url=
Message-ID: <ed849d7d-6831-86f7-4b98-f9a5702ad657@cs.tcd.ie>
Date: Fri, 25 Aug 2017 01:31:12 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.2.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAKKJt-crXRBdu2+vVzuptk-rknTFsHCg=xhPM6YqsD-e=7_7dw@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg="pgp-sha256"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="L4C0bpT5jg512O6HiUX1If76b3Ie09M4L"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-nomcom/HNhaYrcEyoflsvMgFk0TsttnWhk>
Subject: Re: [ietf-nomcom] BCP 10 Update, adding an IAOC Advisor to the Nominating Committee
X-BeenThere: ietf-nomcom@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussions of possible revisions to the NomCom process <ietf-nomcom.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf-nomcom>, <mailto:ietf-nomcom-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ietf-nomcom/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf-nomcom@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-nomcom-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-nomcom>, <mailto:ietf-nomcom-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 25 Aug 2017 00:31:20 -0000

Hiya,

On 24/08/17 22:01, Spencer Dawkins at IETF wrote:
> Hi, Stephen,
> 
> On Thu, Aug 24, 2017 at 11:17 AM, Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie
>> wrote:
> 
>>
>> Hiya,
>>
>> On 23/08/17 04:11, Spencer Dawkins at IETF wrote:
>>> Hi, Stephen,
>>>
>>> On Wed, Aug 9, 2017 at 8:53 PM, Stephen Farrell <
>> stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Hiya,
>>>>
>>>> FWIW, my take:
>>>>
>>>> - I don't care if we use the term liaison or advisor
>>>> - I do think the IAOC has to pick the person
>>>> - I do think every nomcom needs such a person helping
>>>>   out
>>>>
>>>
>>> Sorry for my delay in responding.
>>
>> Ditto:-)
>>
>>>
>>> On your other points, I think I know what to do with your feedback, but
>>> this one is worth talking about some more.
>>>
>>> There are different levels of "Nomcoms needing someone who speaks
>> IAOC-ese
>>> fairly fluently".
>>>
>>> I'm shooting for "don't forget to think about how you'll know whether
>>> you've got a viable IAOC candidate to forward to the confirming body, and
>>> if you don't know who can help, the IAOC should be well-placed to make
>>> suggestions about people
>>> who can help".
>>>
>>> I could be shooting for "the Nomcom has to ask for help", or even "has to
>>> ask the IAOC for help".
>>>
>>> At the extreme, I could be shooting for "change the definition of
>> committee
>>> membership so that if you don't have representation from the IAOC, you've
>>> got a really big problem", to match not having a liaison from the IAB or
>>> IESG.
>>
>> It's not a hill on which I'd die, but I don't think it extreme
>> to expect every nomcom to have an IAOC-helper, even for years
>> when there is no IAOC appointment for nomcom to make. So I think
>> your last target above is the better one.
>>
> 
> I agree with your starting point, for a couple of reasons.
> 
> First, in private conversations, I am told that some Nomcoms get feedback
> about AD nominees that is actually more appropriate for IAOC nominees,
> because the community isn't quite sure where the dividing line between the
> two bodies is. I don't know more details, because that feedback is
> Nomcom-confidential, and I wasn't on the Nomcom(s) where that happened,
> but, yes, having someone who can say "but that's our job" in the room seems
> helpful, whether that particular Nomcom is reviewing an IAOC position or
> not.

I think a whole bunch of IETF plenaries provide evidence that the
community do get at least IESG/IAOC responsibilities mixed up, (as
they ought - given that loads of I* stuff is just administrivia:-)
but all such comments ought be properly weighed in all cases by the
sitting nomcoms. (I mean "properly" in the sense that whatever sane
community comment is offered is valid commentary by definition and
hence deserves knowledgeable consideration, which requires help
from folks who're up to date on the relevant body's stuff.)

> (I wouldn't be surprised to hear that Nomcoms have also gotten feedback
> about IAOC nominees that should have been pointed at IESG nominees, but no
> one has told me that, so forget I said it)
> 
> Second, and more important than it should be, the reason the past Nomcom
> didn't ask for a liaison from IAOC was because it's not part of
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7437, and the past chair/advisor didn't
> think of it, because he had not reviewed an IAOC position and hadn't asked
> for a liaison when he was chair. So, if a Nomcom doesn't have an IAOC
> advisor because they're not reviewing an IAOC position, our running code is
> that it's easy to forget to ask for one when a Nomcom does review an IAOC
> position ;-)
> 
> Let me chew on how I can say that Nomcoms really need that input, but what
> I'm concerned about is that a Nominating Committee is defined as
> 
>    The nominating committee comprises at least a Chair, 10 voting
>    volunteers, two liaisons, and an advisor.
> 
> and if I state having an IAOC advisor is a (new) requirement, a Nominating
> Committee that doesn't have one would be vulnerable to an appeal to the
> ISOC board, because the structure doesn't match what's in the BCP - 

I don't get why that's a problem. If this draft updates the BCP, then
it becomes part of the BCP. For a minor update like this, I don't see
a big deal here.

> and
> because we're talking about IASA 2.0, sending a representative for IAOC may
> not even make sense, but the BCP text wouldn't go away by itself (BCP text
> that could go away by itself was the point of
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3933, but whatever).
> 
> I may be excessively sensitive about making this prescriptive, because we
> had to write a new BCP to make a one-word change in a couple of BCPs, so
> I'm happy to listen to reason.

John's suggestion to say that helpers are needed for all the major
bodies to which nomcoms appoint members seems like it should be fine
when well wordsmithed.

Cheers,
S.

PS: I don't think this is mega-urgent, so fixing it for the next
cycle or the one after are both fine.


> 
> Spencer, (in this case) as author of https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7475,
> which was less simple than you might hope ...
> 
> 
> 
> I am fine with the description of "helper" being vague-ish to
>> allow for iasa2 etc.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> S.
>>
>>>
>>> Are people comfortable with this being more permissive than prescriptive?
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>>
>>> Spencer
>>>
>>>
>>>> - I'm fine if a recent but not current IAOC member is
>>>>   the stuckee, where recent is say <= 2 years since
>>>>   being an IAOC appointee. Weasel wording around that
>>>>   goal is fine so long as the intent is clear.
>>>> - If the stuckee is not a current IAOC member, then I
>>>>   think there needs to be some form of appeal of the
>>>>   appointment possible, even if that's via some hard
>>>>   to exercise mechanism.
>>>>
>>>> S.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>