Re: [ietf-nomcom] Help with three errata against RFC8713

[Michael StJohns <[e-mail]>]

On 8/4/2023 7:17 AM, Lars Eggert wrote:
> Hi,
>
> there are three NomCom-related errata filed against RFC8713:
>
> * https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid7092
Reject.  Rich seems to conflate generating a new set of seeds with 
requiring a complete rerun of all of the process - including 
objections.  That's not what the section says.  Basically, the Chair 
needs to pick a set of seed sources and a time to harvest the seeds to 
get a new generation of selections - traditionally, those sources cycled 
on a week basis, but that's not part of the requirements. Objections get 
made prior to the first pull as to the contents of the list, and 
thereafter as to specific selections for good and valid reasons (e.g. 
wrong company, duplication on the list, etc). The former is open for a 
week, the latter can happen at any time prior to the Nomcom starting its 
actual work.
> * https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid7274

Differing from Stephen - Reject.  There are three things here and I 
think Rich is conflating them all.   First is the call for nomination - 
in this case the actual email refers to the webform used to capture 
nominations, and later to capture feedback.  The various messages 
overtime include the general process by which the community nominates 
and provides feedback.  Second is the actual nomination - which AFAIR 
captures exactly that list of information - its slightly indirect, but 
as long as the nominator is informed of the requirements at some point 
I'd say that these two paragraphs are fulfilled.  The last is the 
questionnaire which is not part of the call for nomination, but part of 
the feedback cycle with the proposed candidates.  I wrote the first of 
these during my term as Nomcom chair and they've evolved.  This is 
information this specific Nomcom is asking for, so it comes under the 
heading of "leave for the Nomcom to decide".


> * https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid7300

Reject as is.   It needs a different errata.  AIRC, That paragraph of 
the section actually covers poaching - the moving of a member from one 
body to another.  Those suggestions usually come internal to the Nomcom 
and sometimes never make it to the candidate to be moved. It hasn't 
happened recently, but the text should be retained, perhaps with an 
explanation.  This also covers nominations that were made internal to 
the nomcom, but never made it to the tracking system and so never made 
it past the internal deliberations.  Those do not need a formal "no you 
didn't make it".

The appropriate errata is "Change 'candidate' to 'nominee' in paragraph 
5.15 for all instances of 'candidate'".  That should resolve the 5.13 
conflict and is more correct. If you go that direction, HFDU is the 
appropriate resolution.


>
> I would appreciate some discussion around how I should dispatch them.

My take is that there are a lot of other issues (section 7 springs to 
mind, as well as 5.9 given how many non-voting members are now part of 
the process).  It may make more sense to open up a new task group to 
revise this again.

Mike


>
> Thanks,
> Lars
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> ietf-nomcom mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-nomcom