Re: Last Call: <draft-leiba-3777upd-eligibility-04.txt> (Update to RFC 3777 to Clarify Nominating Committee Eligibility of IETF Leadership) to Best Current Practice

Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com> Thu, 27 September 2012 17:57 UTC

Return-Path: <housley@vigilsec.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id ED10321F861B for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 27 Sep 2012 10:57:44 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.571
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.571 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.028, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id psmlsaYINfNj for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 27 Sep 2012 10:57:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from odin.smetech.net (mail.smetech.net [208.254.26.82]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 346E521F85C6 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 27 Sep 2012 10:57:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (unknown [208.254.26.81]) by odin.smetech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8ACE29A4007; Thu, 27 Sep 2012 13:58:00 -0400 (EDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at smetech.net
Received: from odin.smetech.net ([208.254.26.82]) by localhost (ronin.smetech.net [208.254.26.81]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id JuQtvu4NAS0b; Thu, 27 Sep 2012 13:57:32 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from [192.168.2.100] (pool-96-255-37-162.washdc.fios.verizon.net [96.255.37.162]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by odin.smetech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id C17719A4002; Thu, 27 Sep 2012 13:57:57 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: Last Call: <draft-leiba-3777upd-eligibility-04.txt> (Update to RFC 3777 to Clarify Nominating Committee Eligibility of IETF Leadership) to Best Current Practice
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
From: Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com>
In-Reply-To: <50647C77.5070805@dcrocker.net>
Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2012 13:57:39 -0400
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <E2D914B6-C0CD-4228-A7CA-5EA72CFF67E0@vigilsec.com>
References: <20120927150522.9680.50930.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <8098D3F7-A030-49F0-ADBC-EE2F2F360D15@vigilsec.com> <50647C77.5070805@dcrocker.net>
To: dcrocker@bbiw.net
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084)
Cc: ietf@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2012 17:57:45 -0000

Dave:

>> I agree that this sentence needs changed.  However, I think that one other sentence should be updated while we are dealing with the IAOC in this document.
>> 
>> RFC 3777 says:
>> 
>>    Member Recall: This is the process by which the behavior of a sitting
>>       member of the IESG or IAB may be questioned, perhaps resulting in
>>       the removal of the sitting member.
>> 
>> The community should also be able to recall an IAOC member.
> 
> 
> That alters the scope of the draft abit.  Hence the title of the draft would now need to be something like:
> 
>   Update to RFC 3777 to Clarify Aspects of Eligibility and Recall
> 
> As for the earlier discussion seeking to exclude paid staff, I think it odd to have criteria that would permit /any/ paid staff to sit on Nomcom.  We pay for a number of folk 'staff' folk to show up and IETF meetings and none of them should qualify for Nomcom, IMO.

Two things ...

(1) Yes, if my suggestion is accepted, updating two sentences (instead of just one) to include the IAOC does change the scope of the document, and the title should reflect the proper scope.

(2) Looking at the history (https://www.ietf.org/nomcom/committee.html), it does not seem that there has been an issue of 'staff' seeking NomCom spots.  Prior to IETF Last Call, a previous version of this document was discussed on this mail list and on the ietf-nomcom mailing list. It was also discussed by a design team made up of ex-NomCom Chairs,  My sense of those discussions is to exclude as few people as necessary to avoid a self-selecting leadership, and the current document reflects that perspective.

Russ