Re: Last Call: draft-dawkins-nomcom-dont-wait (Nominating Committee Process: Earlier Announcement of Open Positions and Solicitation of Volunteers) to BCP

[Russ Housley <[e-mail]>]

Ooops.  I sent this on the wrong thread.  The 
draft-dawkins-nomcom-dont-wait document is approved, and it is in the 
RFC Editor queue.  This message was about the 
draft-dawkins-nomcom-openlist document.  I'll resend this message on 
the proper thread so that people will be able to locate it with 
expected searches in the future.

Russ

At 05:19 AM 7/27/2009, Russ Housley wrote:
>The IETF Last Call 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.
>
>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.
>
>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.
>
>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".
>
>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.
>
>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 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.
>
>Russ Housley
>General Area Director