Re: Last Call: draft-dawkins-nomcom-openlist (NominatingCommittee Process: Open Disclosure of Willing Nominees) to BCP

["Spencer Dawkins" <[e-mail]>]

Hi, Russ,

Here's where I am on this...


> The IETF Last Call discussion of draft-dawkins-nomcom-openlist resulted in 
> a healthy discussion with many people speaking.  Some people think that 
> the open list is the right thing to do, but other people  want to redesign 
> the entire NomCom process from a base set of principles.  This message 
> summarizes my view of the consensus following that discussion, and it 
> suggests a way forward.
>
> Overall, I think there is community support for open lists.  However, 
> there are a few shades of gray regarding issues that were raised in the 
> IETF Last Call.
>
> For publication of an open list being mandatory...
> ... I judge the consensus to be against it. That is, publication of an 
> open list by NomCom is allowed but not required.

Although 3777 doesn't use 2119 conventions (so I'm not introducing any 
reliance on these conventions in my update, I believe the use of "may" in 
the current text

  <t>The list of nominees willing to be considered for positions under 
review
   in the current NomCom cycle is not confidential.
   The NomCom may publish a list of names of nominees who are willing to be 
considered
   for positions under review to the community,
   in order to obtain feedback from the community on these nominees.
  </t>

says "allowed but not required".

> For allowing NomCom to suppress names ...
> ... I judge the consensus to allow it.  That is, the community does not 
> want to tie the NomCom hands as there may be cases where it is the right 
> thing to do.

This was not addressed in the current text. I'm adding

  <t>The NomCom may choose not to include some names in the public list, if 
this is the
   right thing to do, in NomCom's opinion.
  </t>

> For open feedback sessions on IAB/IESG/AD/WG chair performance and 
> interaction with NomCom when some people being discussed are under 
> consideration by NomCom ...
> ... I judge the consensus to be that the community does not consider this 
> to be a real problem.  The community wants NomCom-selected leadership to 
> be able to publicly seek feedback on their performance. It is also silly 
> to ask NomCom to ignore any public feedback sessions that might occur.

I'm reading this as "no change required".

> For allowing nominees to say "but the incumbent is better" in public ...
> ... I judge the consensus to be against such statements.  We also want to 
> avoid statements that say, "I'm running because the current guy isn't 
> doing a good job".

I'm reading this as "no change required".

> For statements of opinion in the draft ("the community might accept") ...
> ... I will have the author remove them before IESG evaluation.  Spencer 
> included this material to indicate that comments from earlier reviews were 
> heard..  However, I think that potential concerns about open nominee lists 
> should go in an appendix.  This material could be useful in the future.

I removed the semi-snarky comments on each concern, and moved the list of 
concerns itself to an appendix.

> For MUST NOT lobby or campaign ...
> ... I judge that the community did not reach consensus on this topic. 
> Important points include:
> 1) It was pointed out that the only enforcement mechanism available is for 
> NomCom to do something if it happens.  If public statements of support are 
> perceived to work, then we have changed the process in a way that we want 
> to avoid.
> 2) Refusal to consider people just because someone else made a public 
> statement of support seems unwise.  That would be a serious DOS attack.
> 3) We should have MUST NOT precisely because we can't enforce the rules, 
> so they need to look strong.
> ... I have asked the author to rewrite this section to make these points:
> 1) Nominee encouraged lobbying and campaigning are considered unacceptable 
> behavior.
> 2) NomCom cannot be expected to completely ignore any lobby or campaign 
> effort that might occur; however, NomCom ought to consider the judgment of 
> any nominee that encourages or supports such activities.

I'm reading this as requesting text that looks like this:

  <t>Nominees may choose to ask people to provide feedback to NomCom, but
   should not encourage any public statements of support. NomComs should 
consider
      nominee-encouraged lobbying and campaigning to be unacceptable 
behavior,
  </t>

  <t>IETF community members are encouraged to provide feedback on nominees 
to NomCom, but
   should not post statements of support/non-support for nominees in any 
public forum.
  </t>

> I suggest that the best way forward from this point is to have the author 
> post an updated I-D, and then conduct a focused IETF Last Call on the one 
> yet-to-be-resolved issue.

Updated draft is now available at 
http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-dawkins-nomcom-openlist-05.txt

Thanks,

Spencer