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

Spencer Dawkins at IETF <spencerdawkins.ietf@gmail.com> Fri, 25 August 2017 04:02 UTC

Return-Path: <spencerdawkins.ietf@gmail.com>
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 26133132197 for <ietf-nomcom@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 24 Aug 2017 21:02:51 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.698
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.698 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
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 kzQetyXGK2D8 for <ietf-nomcom@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 24 Aug 2017 21:02:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-yw0-x234.google.com (mail-yw0-x234.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4002:c05::234]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 18E7A12008A for <ietf-nomcom@ietf.org>; Thu, 24 Aug 2017 21:02:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-yw0-x234.google.com with SMTP id h127so7374161ywf.3 for <ietf-nomcom@ietf.org>; Thu, 24 Aug 2017 21:02:49 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=fubMEw0Q5nrB/D8LgrdObOiBeBDnOhBm7r0Wuv4cjrA=; b=Clyg2lw1H9MrDdMnZjruOpV+Gkh1m9T794ABxOH7QsNsTJJ0zQXPeV5N1nJVoyVg1n +k0q5OPQXs2WrjDAkeuxq4VIt6Vgzf2RXkukgjAbdPX0SSyJdpy2tiZHMjk0jznTPKYM 8CWVLh3O0bKG/WxnieWylnE/F9xh9bU67HNha5CeSx4JaylFxys6VGP7twqBECbNVVrn 4FIZXkR4lq+2fu/7El0KaoQkncpXX+1arfUcGDHh+U2bU3diUbQloe4fb5kztOIsamZb X6BhBLIjVQDcoJ5AqhgKIjU4nHCgUIJ3uA+8jZXd79v2C+7c6vu+xEAR4a8SI0va2aL0 0SWg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=fubMEw0Q5nrB/D8LgrdObOiBeBDnOhBm7r0Wuv4cjrA=; b=jaihjbz0SamoWVIKt1V/JhkBW2AyGlRM04crXQ3Ta8dnDSnZxvR6LapVNEy3CaUMWf VtabXRRPl23HRAFjGc/ILPRJ/kjVJTLSZXoUhA1CMS++9wZPfie++U4S3nSvPvldenl9 +UHALrzV28rHKq/X2YKZf+KGXc7LqfC7OBqQq9M1YUxZQGtA3TjQKF6qWT4EpctaYjCH Ehxu6IGokQ9+mY6qfAXVacmR889T/ZrvUGixSkNiklfVK5Vf8C2PAxJiderExqHH+pnf 1nJ1EQAap4h3L+yTX99qpsg0NpjgNqUvPyju6N94UMvtFCgT+soitFr1+9lz6p8g1Lzj nyCw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AHYfb5gxBdvxJuCUMxU3YUGlrPsDC8RVCzMggiV7Bver2eqeQVYzWjNn RmgrRO3Gxi1whaDNZmltF6k1kzVHGw==
X-Received: by 10.37.183.196 with SMTP id u4mr7238136ybj.39.1503633768070; Thu, 24 Aug 2017 21:02:48 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.37.2.148 with HTTP; Thu, 24 Aug 2017 21:02:47 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <ed849d7d-6831-86f7-4b98-f9a5702ad657@cs.tcd.ie>
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> <ed849d7d-6831-86f7-4b98-f9a5702ad657@cs.tcd.ie>
From: Spencer Dawkins at IETF <spencerdawkins.ietf@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 24 Aug 2017 23:02:47 -0500
Message-ID: <CAKKJt-eRvYnX+CeqU9gG_Aw1pqkNpBVMmDPf3UZxV7qPX3Cvsw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>
Cc: NomCom-Discussion <ietf-nomcom@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="089e08225bec9e43c305578c04d8"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-nomcom/XE7sMnoXQ6P0yFpKuyLpXmJcv9s>
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 04:02:51 -0000

Hi, Stephen,

On Thu, Aug 24, 2017 at 7:31 PM, Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>
wrote:

>
> Hiya,
>
> On 24/08/17 22:01, Spencer Dawkins at IETF wrote:
>

deleted down to ...


> >
> > 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 Alissa thought I could write coherent text. Based on what, I wonder?

What I was trying to describe was

Current BCP structure:

>    The nominating committee comprises at least a Chair, 10 voting
>    volunteers, two liaisons, and an advisor.

Updated BCP structure:

>    The nominating committee comprises at least a Chair, 10 voting
>    volunteers, two liaisons, and an advisor, plus whatever the heck
      we call the person bearing IAOC clue.

So, that would make having an IAOC clue-bearer mandatory (which I have some
sympathy with, please see deleted text where I gave two reasons why I
previously agreed with you about this being desirable), and if a Nomcom
didn't have an IAOC clue-bearer, the Nomcom doesn't match the updated BCP
structure.

So, maybe that doesn't actually matter, but the DOS attack is someone who
doesn't like the results of that Nomcom for at least one of the 15 or so
confirmed candidates, and appeals the entire outcome of that Nomcom to the
ISOC Board because the Nomcom wasn't properly constituted.

Maybe that will never happen, but if it did, we would be in for a wild ride
for 6-8 weeks while we tried to figure out who was actually going to be on
the IAB, IESG, and IAOC as people's terms end for the reviewed positions
during the first IETF meeting week of the year, with no confirmed
candidates to replace them. Maybe we really do have a Plan B, but I have no
idea what it would be (noting that we had no quick solution when Wes Eddy's
term expired and there was no confirmed candidate to replace him in 2013, a
situation you and I have some familiarity with).

John's formulation is interesting, but I don't see it as a small change.
Maybe in another draft, or maybe as part of the conversation I've committed
to have with Alissa upon her return, but I'd expect discussion.

Updating BCPs without planting land mines is hard.

Enjoy your day :-)

Spencer