Re: NomCom procedures revision

Samuel Weiler <weiler@watson.org> Thu, 03 September 2015 18:29 UTC

Return-Path: <weiler@watson.org>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 540201B2D21 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 3 Sep 2015 11:29:03 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.79
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.79 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham
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 ZtaP8JQjBbUg for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 3 Sep 2015 11:28:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from cyrus.watson.org (cyrus.watson.org [198.74.231.69]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 39EA41B387A for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 3 Sep 2015 11:28:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from fledge.watson.org (fledge.watson.org [198.74.231.63]) by cyrus.watson.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A466E46B86; Thu, 3 Sep 2015 14:28:39 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from fledge.watson.org (weiler@localhost.watson.org [127.0.0.1]) by fledge.watson.org (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTP id t83ISdwB096081; Thu, 3 Sep 2015 14:28:39 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from weiler@watson.org)
Received: from localhost (weiler@localhost) by fledge.watson.org (8.15.2/8.15.2/Submit) with ESMTP id t83ISd1H096078; Thu, 3 Sep 2015 14:28:39 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from weiler@watson.org)
X-Authentication-Warning: fledge.watson.org: weiler owned process doing -bs
Date: Thu, 03 Sep 2015 14:28:39 -0400
From: Samuel Weiler <weiler@watson.org>
To: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <superuser@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: NomCom procedures revision
In-Reply-To: <55E0426A.3000800@alvestrand.no>
Message-ID: <alpine.BSF.2.20.1509031356520.47653@fledge.watson.org>
References: <CAL0qLwYJzFZT=OgWqiiTw-n6mvb3PPusRtArmPs_d4_qpLfmpg@mail.gmail.com> <CADnDZ8_KsNP=_nwp2wrckXtHF8ZSxrQTvf9UKbAMpt68BiiCFA@mail.gmail.com> <CAL0qLwbhhqG1qoHbBrymPQrU31qjswPAhdeJBqVdRj2L4AR80A@mail.gmail.com> <55E0426A.3000800@alvestrand.no>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.20 (BSF 67 2015-01-07)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format="flowed"; charset="US-ASCII"
X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.4.3 (fledge.watson.org [127.0.0.1]); Thu, 03 Sep 2015 19:28:39 +0100 (BST)
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/9JdDKvB9pjCqomHp14gNWHCamSQ>
Cc: ietf <ietf@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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, 03 Sep 2015 18:29:03 -0000

As a selecting member of the 2015-16 nomcom, I concur with Harald's 
general concerns re: voting mechanism and quorum confusion.


On Fri, 28 Aug 2015, Harald Alvestrand wrote:

> I suggest changing this to "Once established, the minimum threshold 
> for changing the procedure is 75% of the selecting volunteers".
>
> Note: The 75% acceptance criterion is new. 75% of the selecting
> volunteers is 8 people. That means that 3 people can a) block the
> acceptance of any procedure and b) (with my suggested change) prevent
> any change to the procedure. We should make sure that's what we want.

The document already allows other rules to be added and presumptively 
changed; it should allow the voting mechanism to change, too.  If 
nothing else, that lets a nomcom replace a 
clever-but-too-complicated-to-use mechanism after it realizes the 
error of its ways.

Picking the threshhold for change is hard.  Using whole numbers rather 
than percentages: if 3 out of the 10 selecting members are discontent 
with a process, should we allow 7 out of 10 to force it on them?  8 
out of 10 agreeing is a high bar, but it means that at most two 
selecting members are outliers, which might be a good bar.

I have no strong objections to requiring either 7 of 10 or 8 of 10.

> It is not at all clear what a "quorum" does. In our procedures work, 
> we found that separating out the idea of "meeting quorum" from 
> "voting quorum" made a lot of sense, espcially since we chose to do 
> secret ballots only - which means we can't do it in a meeting 
> anyway, and there was actually no requirement for the members of the 
> quorum to be present at the same time.

Another way of putting that is: this nomcom added a third kind of 
quorum - a quorum for holding a meeting.  We did not change the voting 
quorum rules; we just added another.  I'm not certain a meeting quorum 
is necessary as a general thing.  Maybe this document should just 
remind future nomcoms that they may wish too (and are allowed to) set 
a meeting quorum in addition to voting quorums prescribed in this 
document.

-- Sam