Re: AD Sponsorship of draft-moonesamy-recall-rev

[Michael StJohns <[e-mail]>]

On 4/19/2019 11:32 AM, Spencer Dawkins at IETF wrote:
> I'm actually enjoying this more than I should be ...

*Hah!*

I should have also mentioned that changes to the Nomcom process do not 
and should not require participation or agreement by those being 
appointed by the Nomcom process nor do their voices weigh heavier on the 
process than any other IETF participant.  E.g. While having an AD 
sponsor this is fine, this is one of those documents that really needs 
to be a community consensus document rather than an IESG approved 
document.  (If you don't understand what I mean by this, ask an old 
timer about Kobe over beers some time).

Mike

>
> On Thu, Apr 18, 2019 at 12:03 PM Michael StJohns <[e-mail] 
> <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>
>     On 4/18/2019 12:31 PM, Alissa Cooper wrote:
>     > Hi Adrian,
>     >
>     >> On Apr 17, 2019, at 11:10 AM, Adrian Farrel
>     <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>     >>
>     >> Thanks for this email, Alissa. It's interesting. I presume it
>     means that the IESG is unanimous, because it only takes one AD to
>     AD sponsor a draft.
>     > I asked the IESG. I did not get responses from everyone, but of
>     the people who did respond none of them volunteered to AD-sponsor.
>
>
>     In the past, what's worked for dealing with small things is the
>     formation of a design team to look at the problem and figure out if
>     there's a document or two to be had.  Perhaps that's a better
>     approach
>     than WG forming BOFs or even trying to find a sponsor for this one
>     little piece of the problem?
>
>
> And the reason Mike knows this, is that he (and something like the 
> first 10 Nomcom chairs) were on a design team that Russ Housley formed 
> to look at issues that had recurred across Nomcoms, which we don't 
> really have much visibility because there's not a lot of overlap of 
> Nomcom membership over time.
>
> The report that design team produced is at 
> https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-dawkins-nomcom-3777-issues-00.txt. 
> It resulted in most of the updates to RFC 3777 before they were all 
> obsoleted by https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc7437/.
>
> Do the right thing, of course :D
>
> Spencer
>
>
>     Asa general model, people leave "elected" positions due to term
>     expiration, resignation, expulsion (not IETF), recall, death, or
>     disability (partial IETF - self-reporting yes as a resignation,
>     non-self-reporting no).   It may make sense to fill out the full
>     score
>     card while we're updating the recall process.
>
>     Later, Mike
>
>