IETF Logo Mail Archive

RE: Follow-up from NomCom advisor discussion

"STARK, BARBARA H" <bs7652@att.com> Fri, 24 July 2020 16:29 UTC

Return-Path: <bs7652@att.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 719003A0F3B for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 24 Jul 2020 09:29:01 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.92
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.92 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 ObWcO_yx34GG for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 24 Jul 2020 09:28:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx0a-00191d01.pphosted.com (mx0b-00191d01.pphosted.com [67.231.157.136]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 661CD3A0F64 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 24 Jul 2020 09:28:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from pps.filterd (m0049462.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by m0049462.ppops.net-00191d01. (8.16.0.42/8.16.0.42) with SMTP id 06OGMTLq037137; Fri, 24 Jul 2020 12:28:56 -0400
Received: from alpi154.enaf.aldc.att.com (sbcsmtp6.sbc.com [144.160.229.23]) by m0049462.ppops.net-00191d01. with ESMTP id 32f2n6vb6m-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Fri, 24 Jul 2020 12:28:56 -0400
Received: from enaf.aldc.att.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by alpi154.enaf.aldc.att.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id 06OGStuh022665; Fri, 24 Jul 2020 12:28:55 -0400
Received: from zlp30486.vci.att.com (zlp30486.vci.att.com [135.47.91.177]) by alpi154.enaf.aldc.att.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id 06OGSpbj022464 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO); Fri, 24 Jul 2020 12:28:51 -0400
Received: from zlp30486.vci.att.com (zlp30486.vci.att.com [127.0.0.1]) by zlp30486.vci.att.com (Service) with ESMTP id 617214009E86; Fri, 24 Jul 2020 16:28:51 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from GAALPA1MSGEX1CF.ITServices.sbc.com (unknown [135.50.89.113]) by zlp30486.vci.att.com (Service) with ESMTPS id 4C8284009E78; Fri, 24 Jul 2020 16:28:51 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from GAALPA1MSGEX1CB.ITServices.sbc.com (135.50.89.109) by GAALPA1MSGEX1CF.ITServices.sbc.com (135.50.89.113) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) id 15.1.2044.4; Fri, 24 Jul 2020 12:28:50 -0400
Received: from GAALPA1MSGEX1CB.ITServices.sbc.com ([135.50.89.109]) by GAALPA1MSGEX1CB.ITServices.sbc.com ([135.50.89.109]) with mapi id 15.01.2044.004; Fri, 24 Jul 2020 12:28:50 -0400
From: "STARK, BARBARA H" <bs7652@att.com>
To: 'Samuel Weiler' <weiler@csail.mit.edu>
CC: "'ietf@ietf.org'" <ietf@ietf.org>
Subject: RE: Follow-up from NomCom advisor discussion
Thread-Topic: Follow-up from NomCom advisor discussion
Thread-Index: AdZhOJGeepYmTzfiT6qOUNXmcyD6cQAq06EAAAcBKbA=
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 2020 16:28:50 +0000
Message-ID: <e878c2d28aa54906ac8b9450ab8e7515@att.com>
References: <7bc1d0aab066453d967a35e4d44554c1@att.com> <alpine.OSX.2.23.453.2007231941390.17755@samuels-air>
In-Reply-To: <alpine.OSX.2.23.453.2007231941390.17755@samuels-air>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [130.10.89.142]
x-tm-snts-smtp: 3EB5E9E3B8178C96CF5690D43E245DAA2966A2B5CB56675613049ED73D8AE2B72
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:6.0.235, 18.0.687 definitions=2020-07-24_05:2020-07-24, 2020-07-24 signatures=0
X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_policy_notspam policy=outbound_policy score=0 priorityscore=1501 malwarescore=0 suspectscore=0 phishscore=0 mlxlogscore=860 bulkscore=0 spamscore=0 lowpriorityscore=0 adultscore=0 impostorscore=0 mlxscore=0 clxscore=1015 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.12.0-2006250000 definitions=main-2007240127
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/q4WpFk5bnuANesqTxyP7lfnFNP8>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: Fri, 24 Jul 2020 16:29:08 -0000


> From: Samuel Weiler <weiler@csail.mit.edu>
> 
> Thank you for following the RFC8713 process and seeking the NomCom's
> approval of the proposed advisors.
> 
> I trust that you and the Nomcom will still get useful help and advice
> from Henrik and Suresh, even with them outside the official NomCom
> circle, and I am confident that this NomCom will succeed.

While I do think we will succeed, early indications are the NomCom will be somewhat hamstrung by the inability to bring in advisors. I strongly suspect the language in RFC8713 that grants voting privilege to all people brought in as advisors (to provide expert knowledge, skills, and guidance in any area where the NomCom may not natively have these ) will effectively prevent anyone from ever being brought in as an advisor. 

I'm wondering if it might be possible to file an erratum to get this immediate problem fixed in RFC8713?
Something like:
s/The Chair, liaisons, and advisors do not vote on the selection of
   candidates.  They do vote on all other issues before the committee
   unless otherwise specified in this document./
   The Chair, liaisons, and advisors do not vote on the selection of
   candidates.  The Chair, liaisons and prior year's Chair do vote on all other issues before the committee
   unless otherwise specified in this document. No other advisor votes./

Just a thought. I really dislike operating in a kludgy and inefficient way. It's obvious we need Henrik's help. This voting clause is really standing in the way of efficient operation, and potential advisors aren't saying "I refuse to advise unless I get to vote on procedural issues".
Barbara


> 
> On Thu, 23 Jul 2020, STARK, BARBARA H wrote:
> 
> > With the addition of liaisons from every I*, adding Henrik and
> > Suresh would have caused there to be 9 people on NomCom who could
> > influence procedures -- potentially in ways that were undesirable to
> > a majority of the 10 Voting Members. This idea made some people
> > uncomfortable.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email