Re: New Version Notification for draft-leiba-3777upd-eligibility-00.txt
> > does get into other details which can influence the selection process. > If the objective is to avoid self-selection, one could question the > process for the appointment of the NomCom Chair. > The NomCom chair does not have a vote on the NomCom, and is just a process facilitator. That's for exactly this reason. Barry
Re: New Version Notification for draft-leiba-3777upd-eligibility-00.txt
Hi John, At 05:48 AM 7/31/2012, John C Klensin wrote: Much of this is about appearances. For example, I would hope that sitting ADs would have better sense than to volunteer for the Nomcom even if the rules technically permitted that. Nor Yes. would I expect Secretariat staff to volunteer (as far as I know, none ever has despite the current rules apparently permitting Yes. The IETF usually says that people participate as individuals. It is up to each individual to see whether it is appropriate to volunteer for NomCom if there is possible conflict of interest. RFC 3777 discusses about stacking up the selection process (see primary affiliation) but it does get into other details which can influence the selection process. If the objective is to avoid self-selection, one could question the process for the appointment of the NomCom Chair. Regards, -sm
Re: New Version Notification for draft-leiba-3777upd-eligibility-00.txt
> > I'd probably also recommend excluding paid employees of ISOC. I cannot > > really think of rationale that applies to the secretariat staff but > > not ISOC. > perhaps we should take the leap of assuming folk are adults here (i > realize it is a stretch), and not start a black-list with no proof of > termination. +1 on all points, including the stretch part. Ned P.S. I'm not a big fan of "for appearance's sake". All too often it proves to be a path to madness.
Re: New Version Notification for draft-leiba-3777upd-eligibility-00.txt
On 7/31/12 9:15 AM, Randy Bush wrote: I'd probably also recommend excluding paid employees of ISOC. I cannot really think of rationale that applies to the secretariat staff but not ISOC. perhaps we should take the leap of assuming folk are adults here (i realize it is a stretch), and not start a black-list with no proof of termination. One imagines an ISOC employee participating in the IETF activity on the same basis as everyone else who participates in the IETF activity, as individuals. if their role is covered by an ex officio office exclusion that seems sufficient. randy
Re: New Version Notification for draft-leiba-3777upd-eligibility-00.txt
> I'd probably also recommend excluding paid employees of ISOC. I cannot > really think of rationale that applies to the secretariat staff but > not ISOC. perhaps we should take the leap of assuming folk are adults here (i realize it is a stretch), and not start a black-list with no proof of termination. randy
Re: New Version Notification for draft-leiba-3777upd-eligibility-00.txt
--On Tuesday, 31 July, 2012 05:41 -0400 Sam Hartman wrote: > I'd probably also recommend excluding paid employees of ISOC. > I cannot really think of rationale that applies to the > secretariat staff but not ISOC. There is one, which is that the IETF and its leadership bodies have just about zero influence over the recruitment and hiring of those people. But that same comment applies to IANA staff (as distinct from the Secretariat). We don't hire them, we don't pay them, no money passes (in either direction) between ICANN/IANA and the IASA/IETF, etc. In theory, we could "designate" some other entity as the IANA, which might or might not cost some current IANA staff their jobs. But there are questions about how realistic that is (not part of this discussion). We certainly cannot fire ISOC and, given their charter, it isn't clear they could fire us. If they could, they'd have to fire the entire IETF, not individuals. I suppose one could argue that ISOC staff might have undue influence on the behavior of the ISOC BoT as a confirming body, but I find that really dubious. john
Re: New Version Notification for draft-leiba-3777upd-eligibility-00.txt
--On Monday, 30 July, 2012 21:04 -0400 Barry Leiba wrote: > I have just posted the draft cited below, to adjust the NomCom > eligibility rules to make the following change: >... > This draft also excludes from eligibility as NomCom volunteers > paid employees: >- the Secretariat >- the RFC Editor Barry, I'll try to avoid going over the top this time (as I told you in person, the "exclude WG Chairs" suggestion was entirely to promote discussion rather than a proposal), but... If one wants to exclude the Secretariat and RFC Editor staff -- presumably on the basis that they are appointed by, and draw their salaries from, bodies partially appointed by the Nomcom -- then it seems to me that: (1) You should explicitly exclude the IAD (for completeness of the list and to avoid debate about whether he is already excluded by the "sitting member" and/or "ex-officio" rules for the IAOC. (2) You should exclude anyone from the pool who has bid on or held an IAOC-awarded contract in some period of time (I would suggest a year) or who has bid on such a contract during that period. Anyone who actually serves on the Nomcom should also be excluded from bidding on any such contract during their Nomcom terms and perhaps for a year (or more?) thereafter. Much of this is about appearances. For example, I would hope that sitting ADs would have better sense than to volunteer for the Nomcom even if the rules technically permitted that. Nor would I expect Secretariat staff to volunteer (as far as I know, none ever has despite the current rules apparently permitting that).But relatively short-term contractors are presumably no different from the Secretariat in either the award or management processes and the potential for patronage and cronyism are actually much greater. john
Re: New Version Notification for draft-leiba-3777upd-eligibility-00.txt
I'd probably also recommend excluding paid employees of ISOC. I cannot really think of rationale that applies to the secretariat staff but not ISOC.
Re: New Version Notification for draft-leiba-3777upd-eligibility-00.txt
Sees reasonable. While you are at it, you might complete the I* with IANA... Thanks, Donald = Donald E. Eastlake 3rd +1-508-333-2270 (cell) 155 Beaver Street, Milford, MA 01757 USA d3e...@gmail.com On Mon, Jul 30, 2012 at 9:04 PM, Barry Leiba wrote: > I have just posted the draft cited below, to adjust the NomCom > eligibility rules to make the following change: > > RFC 3777 excludes from eligibility as NomCom volunteers: >- members of the ISOC Board of Trustees >- "sitting members" of the IAB >- "sitting members" of the IESG > > The IAOC did not exist when that was written, and there are questions > about who, exactly, are "sitting members". > > This draft excludes from eligibility as NomCom volunteers: >- members of the ISOC Board of Trustees >- "sitting members" of the IAB >- "sitting members" of the IESG >- "sitting members" of the IAOC > > This draft clarifies that those exclusions: >- DO include the ex-officio members >- DO NOT include the liaisons (unless, of course, they're excluded > by another rule) > > This draft also excludes from eligibility as NomCom volunteers paid employees: >- the Secretariat >- the RFC Editor > > Comments, please. > > Barry > >> Filename:draft-leiba-3777upd-eligibility >> Revision:00 >> Title: Update to RFC 3777 to Clarify Nominating Committee >> Eligibility of IETF Leadership >> Creation date: 2012-07-30 >> WG ID: Individual Submission >> Number of pages: 4 >> URL: >> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-leiba-3777upd-eligibility-00.txt >> Status: >> http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-leiba-3777upd-eligibility >> Htmlized: >> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-leiba-3777upd-eligibility-00 >> >> >> Abstract: >>RFC 3777 specifies that "sitting members" of the IAB and IESG "may >>not volunteer to serve on the nominating commitee". Since that >>document was written the IAOC was formed, and that body is not >>covered by RFC 3777. There is also uncertainty about whether ex- >>officio members and liaisons are included as "sitting members". This >>document clarifies those situations.
Re: New Version Notification for draft-leiba-3777upd-eligibility-00.txt
I have just posted the draft cited below, to adjust the NomCom eligibility rules to make the following change: RFC 3777 excludes from eligibility as NomCom volunteers: - members of the ISOC Board of Trustees - "sitting members" of the IAB - "sitting members" of the IESG The IAOC did not exist when that was written, and there are questions about who, exactly, are "sitting members". This draft excludes from eligibility as NomCom volunteers: - members of the ISOC Board of Trustees - "sitting members" of the IAB - "sitting members" of the IESG - "sitting members" of the IAOC This draft clarifies that those exclusions: - DO include the ex-officio members - DO NOT include the liaisons (unless, of course, they're excluded by another rule) This draft also excludes from eligibility as NomCom volunteers paid employees: - the Secretariat - the RFC Editor Comments, please. Barry > Filename:draft-leiba-3777upd-eligibility > Revision:00 > Title: Update to RFC 3777 to Clarify Nominating Committee > Eligibility of IETF Leadership > Creation date: 2012-07-30 > WG ID: Individual Submission > Number of pages: 4 > URL: > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-leiba-3777upd-eligibility-00.txt > Status: > http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-leiba-3777upd-eligibility > Htmlized:http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-leiba-3777upd-eligibility-00 > > > Abstract: >RFC 3777 specifies that "sitting members" of the IAB and IESG "may >not volunteer to serve on the nominating commitee". Since that >document was written the IAOC was formed, and that body is not >covered by RFC 3777. There is also uncertainty about whether ex- >officio members and liaisons are included as "sitting members". This >document clarifies those situations.
