[Docs] [txt|pdf|xml|html] [Tracker] [Email] [Nits]

Versions: 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 RFC 5680

Network Working Group                                    S. Dawkins, Ed.
Internet-Draft                                              Huawei (USA)
Updates: 3777 (if approved)                            February 20, 2009
Intended status: BCP
Expires: August 24, 2009


  Nominating Committee Process: Open Disclosure of Willing Candidates
                    draft-dawkins-nomcom-openlist-00

Status of this Memo

   This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF in full conformance with the
   provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups.  Note that
   other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-
   Drafts.

   Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
   and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
   time.  It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
   material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

   The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
   http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.

   The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
   http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.

   This Internet-Draft will expire on August 24, 2009.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2009 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.

   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
   (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
   publication of this document.  Please review these documents
   carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
   to this document.

Abstract

   This document updates RFC 3777, Section 3, Bullet 6 to allow a



Dawkins                  Expires August 24, 2009                [Page 1]

Internet-Draft                NomCom Issues                February 2009


   Nominating and Recall Commitee to disclose the list of volunteers who
   are willing to serve in positions the NomCom is responsible for
   filling.


Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
   2.  Background of this document . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
   3.  Discussion  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
   4.  Updated text from RFC 3777  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
   5.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
   6.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
   7.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
   Author's Address  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6




































Dawkins                  Expires August 24, 2009                [Page 2]

Internet-Draft                NomCom Issues                February 2009


1.  Introduction

   The Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG), the Internet
   Architecture Board (IAB), and at-large IETF representatives to the
   IETF Administrative Oversight Committee (IAOC) are selected by a
   "Nominating and Recall Committee" (universally abbreviated as
   "NomCom").  [RFC3777] defines how the NomCom is selected, and the
   processes it follows as it selects candidates for these positions.

   The NomCom is responsible for filling positions across the breadth of
   the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF).  The NomCom needs
   relevant information about candidates being considered for these
   positions, but current [RFC3777] requirements for confidentiality
   limit the ability of the NomCom to solicit that information.  The
   process change described in this document allows the NomCom to openly
   solicit information about willing candidates.


2.  Background of this document

   [RFC3777] is the latest in a series of revisions to the NomCom
   process.

   [RFC3777] describes the confidental nature of NomCom deliberations in
   section 3, "General", bullet 6, which states:

      All deliberations and supporting information that relates to
      specific nominees, candidates, and confirmed candidates are
      confidential.

      The nominating committee and confirming body members will be
      exposed to confidential information as a result of their
      deliberations, their interactions with those they consult, and
      from those who provide requested supporting information.  All
      members and all other participants are expected to handle this
      information in a manner consistent with its sensitivity.

      It is consistent with this rule for current nominating committee
      members who have served on prior nominating committees to advise
      the current committee on deliberations and results of the prior
      committee, as necessary and appropriate.

   Since at least 1996, most NomComs have sent out a "short list" of
   candidates under consideration to a variety of audiences.  The target
   audiences differ from year to year, but have included members of
   specific leadership bodies, working group chairs in a specific area
   (for IESG positions), and all working group chairs (for IAB and IAOC
   positions).



Dawkins                  Expires August 24, 2009                [Page 3]

Internet-Draft                NomCom Issues                February 2009


   This practice is probably unavoidable, but it is periodically
   challenged because it's not explicitly allowed as an exception to the
   blanket requirement for confidentiality.

   We also note that this practice penalizes IETF participants who
   aren't members of one of the audiences being surveyed - they have no
   way of knowing who is being considered, other than the incumbent(s),
   and have little incentive to provide feedback on individuals who
   might not even be candidates.

   In an attempt to maintain the required level of confidentiality, past
   NomComs have also included "ringers" on the short list - candidates
   who have notified NomCom that they are NOT willing to serve.  Since
   anyone who sees the short list does not know who the ringers are,
   consciencious IETF participants also provide feedback on candidates
   who have already declined.  This is a waste of precious IETF-
   participant cycles.

   The NomCom should be allowed to solicit needed feedback from the
   community on all candidates who are willing to serve.  The community
   should not waste time providing feedback on candidates who are not
   willing to serve.


3.  Discussion

   We take it as given that current NomComs members will not likely have
   personal experience with all candidates for positions under review.

   We assume that asking the larger community for feedback about these
   candidates is preferable to NomCom members without personal
   experience simply deferring to the members of the NomCom who DO have
   personal experience with specific candidates.  If this assumption
   holds, the only question is how best to ask the community for
   feedback.

   We considered three possibilities:

   1.  Asking for feedback on all candidates, whether they are willing
       to serve or not.
   2.  Asking for feedback on all candidates who are willing to serve.
   3.  Asking for feedback on the candidates that NomCom is seriously
       considering (the "short list").

   Asking for feedback on candidates who are not willing to serve is a
   waste of precious IETF-participant cycles, and may make it less
   likely that NomCom would receive feedback on some candidates who are
   willing to serve.



Dawkins                  Expires August 24, 2009                [Page 4]

Internet-Draft                NomCom Issues                February 2009


   Asking for feedback on all candidates who are willing to serve allows
   the community to point out specific strengths and weaknesses of all
   candidates, and this feedback should be useful to NomCom in deciding
   which candidates to seriously consider.  It also ensures that NomCom
   has feedback on candidates who may not appear on the short list
   initially, in the event that a strong candidate is suddenly unwilling
   or unable to serve.

   We also note that the list of willing candidates would include
   incumbents who are willing to serve an additional term.


4.  Updated text from RFC 3777

   At the end of the three paragraphs in [RFC3777], section 3,
   "General", bullet 6, which are currently:

      All deliberations and supporting information that relates to
      specific nominees, candidates, and confirmed candidates are
      confidential.

      The nominating committee and confirming body members will be
      exposed to confidential information as a result of their
      deliberations, their interactions with those they consult, and
      from those who provide requested supporting information.  All
      members and all other participants are expected to handle this
      information in a manner consistent with its sensitivity.

      It is consistent with this rule for current nominating committee
      members who have served on prior nominating committees to advise
      the current committee on deliberations and results of the prior
      committee, as necessary and appropriate.

   add a fourth paragraph, with the following text:

      The list of candidates willing to serve in positions under review
      in the current NomCom cycle is not confidential.  The NomCom will
      publish the list of names of all willing candidates to the
      community, in order to obtain feedback from the community on these
      candidates.  The list of candidates published should not contain
      candidates who have not indicated a willingness to serve in the
      position(s) under review.


5.  Security Considerations

   This specification describes issues with the current IETF Nominating
   Committee process ([RFC3777]) and proposes an update to allow the



Dawkins                  Expires August 24, 2009                [Page 5]

Internet-Draft                NomCom Issues                February 2009


   NomCom to solicit feedback on willing candidates from the entire
   community.  No security considerations apply.


6.  IANA Considerations

   No IANA actions are requested in this specification.


7.  Normative References

   [RFC3777]  Galvin, J., "IAB and IESG Selection, Confirmation, and
              Recall Process: Operation of the Nominating and Recall
              Committees", BCP 10, RFC 3777, June 2004.


Author's Address

   Spencer Dawkins (editor)
   Huawei Technologies (USA)

   Phone: +1 214 755 3870
   Email: spencer@wonderhamster.org




























Dawkins                  Expires August 24, 2009                [Page 6]


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.107, available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/