Re: v 1.2, IETF material

["Beast (Donald E. Eastlake, 3rd)" <[e-mail]>]

From:  Einar Stefferud <Stef=[e-mail]>
In-Reply-To:  Your message of Fri, 04 Dec 1992 14:05:22 -0500.
	      <[e-mail]> 

>}How come IAB terms are 2 instead of 3 years as I though was being
>}talked about?
>3 years in this business is a whole generation, so 3 years is like a
>lifetime appointment;-) 2 years is long enough.  4 years is foreever.

I was unable to attend the plenary because I had to go back to Boston
early.  On the above point and others, I'd be interested in whether
the feeling described came out of the plenary or whatever.

To the extent that the IAB are the elder statesman, it seems
reasonable to have them serve a "generation".  I don't consider this
point all that important but the original idea of having the IAB serve
a longer term seemed like a good idea and still does to me.

>}It seems kind of embarrassing to me if the nominations committee had
>}to nominate someone who sat in on all its sessions.
>Simple.  Nominees must be excused from all deliberations of their own
>nomination if they happen to sit on the committee.  Why exclude
>someone from the nomination commitee just because they might become a
>candidate?

Of course you would expect the nominating committee to do that but
consider: (1) What if it doesn't? (2) Even if it does, it looks bad
from the outside. Isn't it worth something to avoid the appearance of
consipiracy? (3) Even if it does and you ignore the external
appearance: it will not be comfortable to be on a nominating committee
and be asked to leave; it will not be comfortable to be on a
nominating committee and have to ask someone else on the committee to
leave; it will not be comfortable to be on a nomnating committee
considering someone who has excused themselves and know that you have
the choice of either nominating them and being acused by some of being
part of some "old-boy" insider conspiracy or not nominating them and
having them return to the committee to have to work with people they
know rejected them.  It's basicly a mess to let the nominating
committee nominate people who are members of the committee.  Why not
just clean this up with a few words prohibiting it?

(If you really can't find anyone else for a position and the
nominating committee feels that one of its members is the only
suitable person and that member wants the position, they can simply
resign from the nominating committe.  This wouldn't look all that
great either but you could do it if there were no other choice.  But I
think it is unlikely that this would ever happen.)

>}At most, something saying "The nominating committee shall recommend
>}at least one name for each position." should do and probably could be
>}combined into 2.4.
>I think that word smithing this thing with intent to boil it down to
>the smallest possible, no-redundant text is a bad idea.  This document
>is for human consumption, not a computer programming system.  Some
>redundancy is good for the human soul.

Your assesment of what I was trying to do is incorrrect.  If I was
trying to boil this down to minimum text I would be suggesting a total
rewrite and re-organization.

Furthermore, this particular change was substantive, not an
elimination of redundancy.  I don't like the current wording's
implication that the duty of the nominating committee is to come to a
consensus on one candidate.  Some people may think that is best, but I
and I think many others would disagree.  Instead of imposing this one
candidate bias on the nominating committee or imposing some other bias
suggesting multiple candidates were good, I was proposing a change
that would leave the matter up to the nominating committee itself.

Once you make my proposed change, you have a very short one senstence
section which seems to fit logically with the immediately previous
section so why not combine them?

>Also, lets not spend a lot of time grinding our tedium too fine.
>	"And how do you wish your tedium sir?  Rare or Medium?"

Tedium comes from redundancy.  If one were to boil it down to the
minimum text, it would decrease tedium.  But I certainly wasn't doing
that anyway.

>}I don't see any use in section 3.1.  Why not just delete it as its covered
>}in 3.2 and 3.3?
>Why do you care?

Because totally no-op sections make rules longer, less likely to be
read and understood by the people who it is important to have
understand them, harder to modify and keep consistent, harder to
understand, etc.  This particular case is not one of saying the same
thing in different ways, or including material motivating a section,
or discussion of alternatives, all of which would be theoretically
redundant but might be useful in practice.  This is just pure excess
repeating in exactly the same words a point covered more specifically
immediately below.

>}Just to make it clear what is going on, I would add "to introduce
>}themselves" after the word "talk" in 3.4.
>What if they feel they need no "introduction?"  

Then what the hell are they going to do when they talk to the IETF?
Others have raised questions about this "talk" provision.  The current
provision might be all that was "legally" necessary to cause the
desired events to happen but I am suggesting more verbiage, which you
seem to like, to explain what's going on.  If I'm wrong and the
purpose of this talk is, say, to explain the the new appointee's
position on the issue of what is the best text editor (:-), then
perhaps the procedures should say that.

>}Actually, I think calling on an Ombudsman appointed by the trustees to
>}intervene should always require a cohesive statement in writing as to
>}what the problem is so perhaps a similar provision should be inserted
>}in 4.2 which would eliminate a need for it here.
>I am in favor of not binding the hands of the Ombudsman so she can
>work informally to head off problems before they become formal and in
>writing, which then requires formal and in writing responses, and lo,
>pretty soon we are in litigation and adversary mode.  Yuck!

You are correct that the Ombudsman should be able to work informally
so I should withdraw the above sentence.  (Actually, I think the right
thing is a bit more complicated but I won't go into it here.  I have
been involved with private organization disciplinary proceedings as a
complaintant, as a person complained against (in the particular case I
was formally censured, an action that I think was appropriate under
the cirucmstances), as a member of a disciplinary committee, and as a
drafter of By-Law provisions covering these matters.  A full set of
rules covering all reasonable contingencies for this sort of stuff
tends to run somewhat over a page and I don't think anyone wants that
so I won't burden you with either an example or proposal.)

Still, I stick by my comment that a cohesive written complaint should
be necessary for a recall.  Can't you see the blizzard of e-mail that
would be involved in such a thing and a person who was recalled
bitterly complaining how they were never given a chance to defend
themselves because the "charges" were never made clear, kept changing,
etc.?

>}Despite the extent of my comments above, I think this is a excellent
>}piece of work.
>I sure wish you had said this in the beginning!  I might not have
>prepared this response;-).  But I did, so I think you deserve to see
>it.  I sure hope we don't have a lot more people who want to do this.
>
>Have we come to consesus yet?  I sure hope so!

Sure, as long as the final result includes all of my suggestions that
no one has spoken against! :-)

>Cheers...\Stef

Donald