Discussions halted more than a month ago in deference to the active
NOMCOM process. Now that they have completed their task we should pick
up the discussion of the revision to the Nominating Committee
Procedures (RFC2727). I wanted to take this opportunity to remind
everyone about this important work and encourage more participation.
RFC2727bis specifies how the IESG and IAB members are selected. It is
your community and they are your leaders. Please do take an interest in
how the IETF is managed.
There is no physical working group for this document and hence no
meeting at this next or any IETF. All work will be completed on the
mailing list:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To Subscribe:
a. send a message with the single word "subscribe" in the body
to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
b. visit the following URL:
http://lists.elistx.com/subscribe
However, I will be at the IETF next week for anyone who wants to have a
face-to-face discussion.
The Agenda has grown by a few items since the last publication. I'm
sure there will be more items before we are done. I've included a copy
below.
Finally, note that RFC2727 is a BCP. When this revision is completed it
will replace RFC2727 and also be a BCP.
Thanks,
Jim
--
James M. Galvin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
AGENDA (as of 3/12/2002)
a. ISOC liaison
b. Handling disputes regarding the selection of NOMCOM members
c. NOMCOM announcements to all IETF mailing lists
d. Clarifications to Recall Process
e. Clarify filling an interim vacancy very late in an existing NOMCOM
cycle, i.e., new NOMCOM is currently being created and there is a
vacancy to be filled
e.1. Who sends out call for nominations? Two calls seems confusing
at best.
f. NOMCOM should retain information/documentation until the end of its
cycle.
NEW AGENDA ITEMS SINCE 1/28/2002 (as of 3/12/2002)
g. Should there be term limits?
h. Should we relax the confidentiality requirement for *nominated*
candidates? The intent here is to facilitate getting comments from
the community as it would permit announcements of all those who are
to be considered.
i. Can we say more, perhaps more explicitly define the role of liaisons?
In particular, is it reasonable for the NOMCOM to have deliberations
explicitly in the absence of liaisons? Perhaps the liaisons are
really only needed early in the process to bring relevant experience
and insight to be used by the NOMCOM? Perhaps the liaisons should
not be present during voting?
INCORPORATED - STILL OPEN FOR COMMENT (as of 3/12/2002)
1. A definition for "sitting member" was added.
2. An information retention policy was added requiring the Chair to
submit a collection of all information related to the operation
of and execution of the responsibilities of the nominating
committee to the Internet Society President for long-term
storage. Previous Chairs have done this so the addition is just
a formalization of existing practice.
3. A timeframe for the appointment of the Chair was added. The
timeframe could always be inferred from the text but to avoid
confusion it is now explicitly stated.
4. Some explicit guidance was added regarding the timeframe for
volunteering to serve on the nominating committee.
5. Some explicit guidance was added to the process of selecting the
nominating committee members. Among other things it must be
possible to iterate the selection method more than just 10 times
to ensure that unavailable or ineligible volunteers can be
replaced.
6. It is now explicitly stated that no person may serve on both the
IESG and the IAB concurrently.
COMPLETED (as of 3/12/2002)
