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

[John C Klensin <[e-mail]>]

--On Thursday, August 24, 2017 16:01 -0500 Spencer Dawkins at
IETF <[e-mail]> wrote:

> 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 - 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.
> 
> Spencer, (in this case) as author of
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7475, which was less simple
> than you might hope ...
>...

Spencer, noting the concerns I expressed in my earlier note,
consider saying, instead of, "there will be an IAOC Liaison" (or
helper, observer, hanger-on) something like "before starting its
work to filter and select candidates, the Nomcom will consider
which bodies from which to seek advice or representation with
that consideration including, but not necessarily limited to,
all bodies to which Nomcoms are charged with appointing members
whether members are being appointed in that year or not".  That
consideration process will include the precise role of any
individuals included in the Nomcom's work with regard to whether
they simply provide information when asked or participate in
some or all Nomcom discussions or deliberations."

I'm sure you can write better sentences, but an approach like
that reminds the Nomcom that the IAOC is relevant, that, if the
Nomcom should in the future start appointing people to other
bodies internal or external to the IETF, we don't have to redo
this.  And I think it is IASA 2.0 proof -- it that process
abolishes the IAOC and creates three bodies named Tom, Dick, and
Harry, the document still works and the Nomcom gets to figure
out who is relevant.

     john