Re: Comments from David Brandin

[Frank Kastenholz <[e-mail]>]

David

Carl Malamud gave the "global" answer that the note you reviewed was
an early note, etc, etc. Several of your comments fall into the category
of what I call "knob tweaking" and no doubt, when it comes time to set those
knobs, we will drag out your comments and use them to figure out the right
setting. Other comments are of a broader scope -- sort of figuring out
what knobs there should be rather than the setting of a knob :-) and I
will address them.


 > 1. TWO-YEAR TERMS
 > 
 > Members of the IAB and IESG will serve two-year terms.  The terms are
 > staggered so approximately half of each body is selected each year.
 > There are no term limits.***THERE SHOULD ALWAYS BE TERM LIMITS OR YOU GET
 > ENTRENCHED AFIPS-LIKE LEADERSHIP. I RECOMMEND 3 TERMS.***

We thought about this. The feeling is that most of the IAB/IESG do
the right thing all of the time and that they ought to continue as
long as they wish in the job. There is a lot of knowledge that builds
up in the people who are on the IAB/IESG and to lose it just because
an arbitrary timer expires would be a shame.

Having the explicit term allows the community as a whole to give the
IAB/IESG members a collective pat on the back by, in effect, saying
"you did a good job for the past two years -- keep doing it" (this is
something we do not do often enough now).

 > 2.4 The nominating committee may recommend a single name for a
 > position, or, if unable to reach consensus on a single name, multiple
 > names. ***THERE SHOULD ALWAYS BE AT LEAST 2 CANDIDATES FOR EVERY JOB. WHO NEEDS
 > A NOMINATING COMMITTEE TO MAKE DICTATORIAL DEFAULT DECISIONS ESPECIALLY IF IT'S
 > CHAIRED BY STAFF? OTHERWISE CALL IT AN APPOINTMENTS COMMITTEE.

We thought about this too. One of the issues that came up was that it
is difficult to recruit people for these positions. It may be very
hard to get one person who is willing and qualified to serve. Getting
two (or more) would then be impossible. Hence, we require one name
and allow multiple names.

 > 3.3 Selectees shall give a talk at an IETF plenary soon after their
 > selection.*** HUH? WHY? IS A SELECTEE A CANDIDATE? THEN COMPETING NOMINEES MUST
 > BE GIVEN EQUAL TIME ETC. IF A SELECTEE HAS BEEN SELECTED, WHAT IS THE PURPOSE
 > OF THIS IN BYLAWS?

This talk is a "Hi! Do you know me?" talk. It is not a "Campaign
Speach".  It is meant to introduce the members of the leadership to
the community.  One might ask what the purpose of this is. One of the
questions that is frequently (though not vehemently) asked is "Who is
on the IAB/IESG?" This talk is meant to address that question.


 > 4.1 If a member of the IETF feels that a member of the IESG, the Chair
 > of the IETF, or a member of the IAB is not carrying out his or her
 > duties, the member of the IETF may present the situation to the
 > Ombudsman. ***SHOULD REQUIRE AT LEAST A SECOND!

The original thoughts were that this process would be initiated by
presenting a petition signed by N (1<N<100) people saying "John Doe
is a bozo and should go". Confidentiality was then brought up. One of
the goal of the recall process is to try to resolve the conflict quietly,
preventing an IAB/IESG member from being judged by the community as
"Guilty by Accusation". Trying to keep some number of people quiet
while trying to resolve some issue was viewed as pretty much impossible
so the idea of such a petition was dropped. 

 
 > 4.2 The Ombudsman shall attempt to resolve the situation within a
 > 90-day period. ***BETTER GIVE THE OMBUDSMAN RESOURCES AND DEFINE "RESOLVE."

"Resolve" means that both the person bringing the complaint and the IESG/IAB
member(s) that is the target of the complaint both agree that it is resolved;
and the person bringing the complaint would then drop it.

 > 4.6 The committee shall investigate the situation in a thorough manner
 > and examine all relevant facts. ***HOW ABOUT SOME GUARANTEED RIGHTS FOR THE
 > ACCUSED?

By trying to keep the issue quiet, and resolving it via the "good offices"
of the Ombudsman we think that "the accused" can keep his or her reputation
and good name intact; unless the Ombudsman can not resolve the issue,
and the recall committee is called, etc, etc, etc. Once the Recall W.G.
meets, things will become public (simply because there will be a relatively
large number of people who know about the issue), the dirty laundry will
get aired in public, etc, etc. This is why we have the Ombudsman -- to try
to resolve things in private (it also prevents public posturing and
dividing the community) -- and why we have 2 year terms (unless some
IESG/IAB member does something really really really bad, you just wait
up to 2 years and then convince the Nominating W.G. not to nominate someone).


Hope this helps.
--
Frank Kastenholz