[ietf-nomcom] Fw: Last Call: draft-dawkins-nomcom-openlist (NominatingCommitteeProcess: Open Disclosure of Willing Nominees) to BCP
"Spencer Dawkins" <spencer@wonderhamster.org> Wed, 29 July 2009 14:55 UTC
Return-Path: <spencer@wonderhamster.org>
X-Original-To: ietf-nomcom@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf-nomcom@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B61653A69E5 for <ietf-nomcom@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 29 Jul 2009 07:55:47 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.957
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.957 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.643, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id P9vcf4PqYKjq for <ietf-nomcom@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 29 Jul 2009 07:55:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mout.perfora.net (mout.perfora.net [74.208.4.195]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9FE0C3A67F4 for <ietf-nomcom@ietf.org>; Wed, 29 Jul 2009 07:55:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from S73602b (dhcp-63fb.meeting.ietf.org [130.129.99.251]) by mrelay.perfora.net (node=mrus1) with ESMTP (Nemesis) id 0MKpCa-1MWAZD0eeu-000PFO; Wed, 29 Jul 2009 10:55:47 -0400
Message-ID: <6333911A908D4209807212A9DB4AF58B@china.huawei.com>
From: Spencer Dawkins <spencer@wonderhamster.org>
To: NomComDiscussion <ietf-nomcom@ietf.org>
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2009 16:55:36 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format="flowed"; charset="iso-8859-1"; reply-type="response"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.5512
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.5579
X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX19/CDnHajDWasHwG1Q1s5jyeh6nWkxcjZ7S4zT yLyHoH7CZ8HcYzVHTGa2Jdcj274JOmgbuZfQa20FyQRotd5/21 vUyATIvCxCoDHR+wIU8rAnWQdcd1+8Lv1nbLeOjbFM=
Subject: [ietf-nomcom] Fw: Last Call: draft-dawkins-nomcom-openlist (NominatingCommitteeProcess: Open Disclosure of Willing Nominees) to BCP
X-BeenThere: ietf-nomcom@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussions of possible revisions to the NomCom process <ietf-nomcom.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-nomcom>, <mailto:ietf-nomcom-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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: Wed, 29 Jul 2009 14:55:47 -0000
Sorry - Russ replied to an e-mail message that said ietf-nomcom@ietf.COM, which of course bounces, and I replied to that message. Just to keep the mailing list in the loop - but please look on the ietf mailing list, because Thomas has already followed up on my post... Spencer ----- Original Message ----- From: "Spencer Dawkins" <spencer@wonderhamster.org> To: <ietf@ietf.org>; <ietf-nomcom@ietf.com> Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 2009 2:44 PM Subject: Re: Last Call: draft-dawkins-nomcom-openlist (NominatingCommitteeProcess: Open Disclosure of Willing Nominees) to BCP > Hi, Russ, > > Here's where I am on this... > > >> The IETF Last Call discussion of draft-dawkins-nomcom-openlist resulted >> in a healthy discussion with many people speaking. Some people think >> that the open list is the right thing to do, but other people want to >> redesign the entire NomCom process from a base set of principles. This >> message summarizes my view of the consensus following that discussion, >> and it suggests a way forward. >> >> Overall, I think there is community support for open lists. However, >> there are a few shades of gray regarding issues that were raised in the >> IETF Last Call. >> >> For publication of an open list being mandatory... >> ... I judge the consensus to be against it. That is, publication of an >> open list by NomCom is allowed but not required. > > Although 3777 doesn't use 2119 conventions (so I'm not introducing any > reliance on these conventions in my update, I believe the use of "may" in > the current text > > <t>The list of nominees willing to be considered for positions under > review > in the current NomCom cycle is not confidential. > The NomCom may publish a list of names of nominees who are willing to be > considered > for positions under review to the community, > in order to obtain feedback from the community on these nominees. > </t> > > says "allowed but not required". > >> For allowing NomCom to suppress names ... >> ... I judge the consensus to allow it. That is, the community does not >> want to tie the NomCom hands as there may be cases where it is the right >> thing to do. > > This was not addressed in the current text. I'm adding > > <t>The NomCom may choose not to include some names in the public list, if > this is the > right thing to do, in NomCom's opinion. > </t> > >> For open feedback sessions on IAB/IESG/AD/WG chair performance and >> interaction with NomCom when some people being discussed are under >> consideration by NomCom ... >> ... I judge the consensus to be that the community does not consider this >> to be a real problem. The community wants NomCom-selected leadership to >> be able to publicly seek feedback on their performance. It is also silly >> to ask NomCom to ignore any public feedback sessions that might occur. > > I'm reading this as "no change required". > >> For allowing nominees to say "but the incumbent is better" in public ... >> ... I judge the consensus to be against such statements. We also want to >> avoid statements that say, "I'm running because the current guy isn't >> doing a good job". > > I'm reading this as "no change required". > >> For statements of opinion in the draft ("the community might accept") ... >> ... I will have the author remove them before IESG evaluation. Spencer >> included this material to indicate that comments from earlier reviews >> were heard.. However, I think that potential concerns about open nominee >> lists should go in an appendix. This material could be useful in the >> future. > > I removed the semi-snarky comments on each concern, and moved the list of > concerns itself to an appendix. > >> For MUST NOT lobby or campaign ... >> ... I judge that the community did not reach consensus on this topic. >> Important points include: >> 1) It was pointed out that the only enforcement mechanism available is >> for NomCom to do something if it happens. If public statements of >> support are perceived to work, then we have changed the process in a way >> that we want to avoid. >> 2) Refusal to consider people just because someone else made a public >> statement of support seems unwise. That would be a serious DOS attack. >> 3) We should have MUST NOT precisely because we can't enforce the rules, >> so they need to look strong. >> ... I have asked the author to rewrite this section to make these points: >> 1) Nominee encouraged lobbying and campaigning are considered >> unacceptable behavior. >> 2) NomCom cannot be expected to completely ignore any lobby or campaign >> effort that might occur; however, NomCom ought to consider the judgment >> of any nominee that encourages or supports such activities. > > I'm reading this as requesting text that looks like this: > > <t>Nominees may choose to ask people to provide feedback to NomCom, but > should not encourage any public statements of support. NomComs should > consider > nominee-encouraged lobbying and campaigning to be unacceptable > behavior, > </t> > > <t>IETF community members are encouraged to provide feedback on nominees > to NomCom, but > should not post statements of support/non-support for nominees in any > public forum. > </t> > >> I suggest that the best way forward from this point is to have the author >> post an updated I-D, and then conduct a focused IETF Last Call on the one >> yet-to-be-resolved issue. > > Updated draft is now available at > http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-dawkins-nomcom-openlist-05.txt > > Thanks, > > Spencer > _______________________________________________ > Ietf mailing list > Ietf@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
- [ietf-nomcom] Fw: Last Call: draft-dawkins-nomcom… Spencer Dawkins