Re: Some thoughts about draft-leiba-3777upd-eligibility-02.txt
Why do you want to rule out employees of those groups? I don't think that most of them would have any interest in volunteering for the nomcom, but why would it be a problem if they did? I mean, I could picture someone who worked for the RFC Editor who was also technically involved in the IETF, like Aaron Falk used to be, and I don't know why we would want to disqualify someone like that from volunteering for the nomcom. Thoughts? Margaret On Aug 21, 2012, at 4:06 PM, Barry Leiba wrote: >> How about asking Heather for the appropriate term? >> Seems easier than guessing :-) > > Good idea. The point here is to address the regular, paid employees, > not any people appointed to advise, nor any regular IETF folks who > might do occasional contracting. I'll see if Heather has any ideas. > > Barry
Re: Some thoughts about draft-leiba-3777upd-eligibility-02.txt
--On Tuesday, August 21, 2012 15:10 -0700 Bob Hinden wrote: >> In particular: should bullet 15,2 (and its supporting text >> elsewhere) be removed? > > 15,2 should probably say "People employed in the IETF > Secretariat….". > > I would leave it in. My thinking is that the IESG, IAB, and > IAOC have oversight roles over the Secretariat and RFC Editor. > Having people employed by these organizations be directly > involved in the selection of the IESG, IAB, and IAOC would be > odd. Bob, There is a slippery slope of trying to make hair-splitting rules here that I've very reluctant to see the community to start down. However, if one were trying to write such rules based on real risk of inappropriate behavior --rather than leaving those risks in place and focusing on the appearance of oddity-- it seems to me that the focus might better be on those who bid on or obtain short-term contracts to do specific work, such as specification-writing or implementation, for the IETF. Precisely because they are short-term (in both the RFP-> Contract Award -> Performance period) and because they apparently often involve working much more closely with a few IAOC or IESG members (although I'm not aware of its being done in recent years, presumably anyone hired by the IAB to write a workshop report would be in the same category), those contractors have much more potential for "you scratch my back, I'll scratch yours" relationships than individuals who are not subject to direct supervision from the I* leadership. I want to stress that I'm not aware of even the suspicion of anything improper occurring in this area in the past. I continue to believe that we would be better off with general guidance that people who are significantly dependent financially on the IETF via ISOC or equivalent funding for IETF activities should avoid volunteering for the Nomcom than with trying to establish rules that are exactly right and avoid all loopholes in them. In practice, I'm much more concerned about the potential for companies (or closely-aligned groups of companies) to "pack" the Nomcom than I am for abuse from groups of people who have generally avoided volunteering for the Nomcom in the past.But, if we need to try to write precise rules, let's try to identify and sweep in all of the important cases, not just obvious ones with bad optics but little practical risk. best, john john
Re: Some thoughts about draft-leiba-3777upd-eligibility-02.txt
>> In particular: should bullet 15,2 (and its supporting text elsewhere) >> be removed? > > 15,2 should probably say "People employed in the IETF Secretariat….". > > I would leave it in. My thinking is that the IESG, IAB, and IAOC have > oversight > roles over the Secretariat and RFC Editor. Having people employed by these > organizations be directly involved in the selection of the IESG, IAB, and IAOC > would be odd. Yes, that was the intent of having it in. The devil, though, is in the details. Do others have wisdom to add here? Barry
Re: Some thoughts about draft-leiba-3777upd-eligibility-02.txt
Barry, On Aug 21, 2012, at 2:27 PM, Barry Leiba wrote: >> I assume the intent is exclude people who are paid by the IETF to do >> work in the IETF. For example, the IAD. > > Correct. > Thanks. >> In these cases it difficult to tell if an individual is working for the >> IETF "long-term full-time work". > > Indeed; it's difficult in many cases. > >> If this text is to remain, it needs to be clearer as to what it means. > > Which may say that it should not remain. > > The specific exclusions that are in the real "rules" part are for the > IETF Secretariat and the RFC Editor. I would be just as happy to > remove those. We can question whether we want to leave the RSE in, > specifically, but there's probably no real need to exclude the paid > RFC Editor function employees. I'll note that the IAD is already > excluded by the "ex-officio" clause (he's an ex-officio IAOC member). Right, but he is one of our two paid employees (via ISOC). > The current IAD has told me that he thinks it would be inappropriate > for the IAD to volunteer in any case, whether or not he's allowed to. I agree. > > Margaret has commented that this stuff should come out. Others, in > early conversations and discussions about all of this, thought it > should be in. Further comments appreciated. I would be OK if it called out the IAD and the RSE as being ineligible. It's simpler than trying to generalize it. > > In particular: should bullet 15,2 (and its supporting text elsewhere) > be removed? 15,2 should probably say "People employed in the IETF Secretariat….". I would leave it in. My thinking is that the IESG, IAB, and IAOC have oversight roles over the Secretariat and RFC Editor. Having people employed by these organizations be directly involved in the selection of the IESG, IAB, and IAOC would be odd. Bob > > Barry
Re: Some thoughts about draft-leiba-3777upd-eligibility-02.txt
At 12:34 21-08-2012, Barry Leiba wrote: I do, and I actually had the same problem with it when I wrote it as you do. So help me, please: How *should* this be put? I don't like, "and those employed in the RFC Editor function," and I really can't think of a concise, clean, accurate way to write it down, though we all (today) know what it means. Text, please, someone. RFC 4844 (see Section 3.1) uses the term "RFC Editor". RFC 6635 mentions "RFC Editor function". I suggest going with the RFC 4844 argument about simplicity and using "RFC Editor". I cannot think of an accurate way to write that paragraph. I'm inclined to pull it out (having not checked that with SM yet, though). Does anyone (including SM) think it definitely needs to be in here? I don't have a strong opinion about the erratum. Pull it out. At 12:45 21-08-2012, Donald Eastlake wrote: In particular, I believe the there are Editorial Boards that the various fragments of the RFC Editor appoint and consult which should not be excluded. These bodies were left out. There is a comment in the draft labelled as anchor1. At 13:11 21-08-2012, Margaret Wasserman wrote: Why do you want to rule out employees of those groups? I don't think that most of them would have any interest in volunteering for the nomcom, but why would it be a problem if they did? I mean, I could picture someone who worked for the RFC Editor who was also technically involved in the IETF, like Aaron Falk used to be, and I don't know why we would want to disqualify someone like that from volunteering for the nomcom. I'll comment as part of the message which Adrian posted. At 03:10 21-08-2012, Adrian Farrel wrote: However, the document very quickly launches into a discussion of other people to exclude from NomCom. It does this by introducing the concept of a "conflict of interest." There may be a valid debate to have about conflict of interest, but I personally find it a very long wedge, and although there may be clear-cut cases at either extreme, it is by no means clear where to draw the line. Yes. I find the excuse used (that those excluded are unlikely to volunteer) as rather poor taste. It may be true that such people have not volunteered in the past, but that should not be used as a reason. You are removing rights that people previously had - you should have good, stand-alone reasons and not depend on whether or not earlier holders of certain posts exercised those rights. The last sentence broaches an interesting angle. From RFC 3777: "The IETF Secretariat is responsible for confirming that volunteers have met the attendance requirement." "The IETF Secretariat is responsible for confirming that each signatory is qualified to be a voting member of a nominating committee." As the IETF Secretariat has duties in the RFC 3777 mechanism, would it be a good stand-alone reason to remove the right to be a volunteer? The RSE and ISE are under contract with the IAOC. The other part of the RFC Editor (function) are external organizations. At 13:52 21-08-2012, Bob Hinden wrote: While on this topic, we might as well get it right. The text in the draft is: This document also excludes certain individuals who are directly paid for their work with the IETF, and who, therefore, have a direct personal financial incentive in the selection of the leadership boards. We limit this exclusion to a few people who are paid for long-term full-time work. In practice, they are unlikely to volunteer for the NomCom anyway, so this addition makes little practical change. I assume the intent is exclude people who are paid by the IETF to do work in the IETF. For example, the IAD. The problem is that no one is paid by the IETF. The IETF has several people who do work at it's direction. This is done as direct employees of ISOC or as contractors who have their contracts with ISOC. We also hire (via ISOC) companies that provide services to the IETF. This ranges from the secretariat services, NOC services, tools development, program management services, and tools specification development. In these cases it difficult to tell if an individual is working for the IETF "long-term full-time work". Ok. :-) Further, the text as written could be interpreted to exclude people who's employers pay they to participate in the IETF. For example, that would include me because it is part of my job to participate in the IETF. I don't think that is the intent of the text in the draft, but it would be easy to interpret it that way. OK, maybe I don't do it full time, but all of the IESG position require full time support. It is the additions to RFC 3777 that matters as they become part of the RFC 3777 rules. I'll discuss about the comments with Barry before commenting further. Regards, S. Moonesamy
Re: Some thoughts about draft-leiba-3777upd-eligibility-02.txt
> I assume the intent is exclude people who are paid by the IETF to do > work in the IETF. For example, the IAD. Correct. > In these cases it difficult to tell if an individual is working for the > IETF "long-term full-time work". Indeed; it's difficult in many cases. > If this text is to remain, it needs to be clearer as to what it means. Which may say that it should not remain. The specific exclusions that are in the real "rules" part are for the IETF Secretariat and the RFC Editor. I would be just as happy to remove those. We can question whether we want to leave the RSE in, specifically, but there's probably no real need to exclude the paid RFC Editor function employees. I'll note that the IAD is already excluded by the "ex-officio" clause (he's an ex-officio IAOC member). The current IAD has told me that he thinks it would be inappropriate for the IAD to volunteer in any case, whether or not he's allowed to. Margaret has commented that this stuff should come out. Others, in early conversations and discussions about all of this, thought it should be in. Further comments appreciated. In particular: should bullet 15,2 (and its supporting text elsewhere) be removed? Barry
Re: Some thoughts about draft-leiba-3777upd-eligibility-02.txt
On Aug 21, 2012, at 3:10 AM, Adrian Farrel wrote: > This document also excludes certain individuals who are directly > paid for their work with the IETF... > I think you can leave it at that. While on this topic, we might as well get it right. The text in the draft is: This document also excludes certain individuals who are directly paid for their work with the IETF, and who, therefore, have a direct personal financial incentive in the selection of the leadership boards. We limit this exclusion to a few people who are paid for long-term full-time work. In practice, they are unlikely to volunteer for the NomCom anyway, so this addition makes little practical change. I assume the intent is exclude people who are paid by the IETF to do work in the IETF. For example, the IAD. The problem is that no one is paid by the IETF. The IETF has several people who do work at it's direction. This is done as direct employees of ISOC or as contractors who have their contracts with ISOC. We also hire (via ISOC) companies that provide services to the IETF. This ranges from the secretariat services, NOC services, tools development, program management services, and tools specification development. In these cases it difficult to tell if an individual is working for the IETF "long-term full-time work". Further, the text as written could be interpreted to exclude people who's employers pay they to participate in the IETF. For example, that would include me because it is part of my job to participate in the IETF. I don't think that is the intent of the text in the draft, but it would be easy to interpret it that way. OK, maybe I don't do it full time, but all of the IESG position require full time support. If this text is to remain, it needs to be clearer as to what it means. Bob Bob
Re: Some thoughts about draft-leiba-3777upd-eligibility-02.txt
> How about asking Heather for the appropriate term? > Seems easier than guessing :-) Good idea. The point here is to address the regular, paid employees, not any people appointed to advise, nor any regular IETF folks who might do occasional contracting. I'll see if Heather has any ideas. Barry
RE: Some thoughts about draft-leiba-3777upd-eligibility-02.txt
How about asking Heather for the appropriate term? Seems easier than guessing :-) A > -Original Message- > From: Donald Eastlake [mailto:d3e...@gmail.com] > Sent: 21 August 2012 20:45 > To: Barry Leiba > Cc: adr...@olddog.co.uk; draft-leiba-3777upd-eligibil...@tools.ietf.org; > ietf@ietf.org > Subject: Re: Some thoughts about draft-leiba-3777upd-eligibility-02.txt > > On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 3:34 PM, Barry Leiba wrote: > >> I have one discussion point and a number of small nits... > > > > ... > > > > There are just two points in your comments that I want to pursue: > > > >> 15.2. People serving in the IETF Secretariat and the RFC Editor > >>may not volunteer to serve as voting members of the > >>nominating committee. > >> > >> Slight problem with the term "RFC Editor" since this is a single person > >> and also a service function. I suspect you mean the latter. > > > > I do, and I actually had the same problem with it when I wrote it as > > you do. So help me, please: How *should* this be put? I don't like, > > "and those employed in the RFC Editor function," and I really can't > > think of a concise, clean, accurate way to write it down, though we > > all (today) know what it means. Text, please, someone. > > In particular, I believe the there are Editorial Boards that the > various fragments of the RFC Editor appoint and consult which should > not be excluded. > > Thanks, > Donald > = > Donald E. Eastlake 3rd +1-508-333-2270 (cell) > 155 Beaver Street, Milford, MA 01757 USA > d3e...@gmail.com > > >>o In bullet 16, to correct an erratum, the last paragraph is > >> replaced by this: > >> > >> One possible selection method is described in RFC 3797 [1]. > >> > >> Perfectly correct, but I don't think this document is the place to > >> correct random errata. > > > > I was (and am) ambivalent here. I did not have this in my first > > version. SM did. When we merged the proposals, I thought it was a > > good idea to fix that. But you're right that it's rather off topic, > > and the right place to do that would be 3777bis, which this decidedly > > is NOT. > > > > I'm inclined to pull it out (having not checked that with SM yet, > > though). Does anyone (including SM) think it definitely needs to be > > in here? > > > > Barry
Re: Some thoughts about draft-leiba-3777upd-eligibility-02.txt
On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 3:34 PM, Barry Leiba wrote: >> I have one discussion point and a number of small nits... > > ... > > There are just two points in your comments that I want to pursue: > >> 15.2. People serving in the IETF Secretariat and the RFC Editor >>may not volunteer to serve as voting members of the >>nominating committee. >> >> Slight problem with the term "RFC Editor" since this is a single person >> and also a service function. I suspect you mean the latter. > > I do, and I actually had the same problem with it when I wrote it as > you do. So help me, please: How *should* this be put? I don't like, > "and those employed in the RFC Editor function," and I really can't > think of a concise, clean, accurate way to write it down, though we > all (today) know what it means. Text, please, someone. In particular, I believe the there are Editorial Boards that the various fragments of the RFC Editor appoint and consult which should not be excluded. Thanks, Donald = Donald E. Eastlake 3rd +1-508-333-2270 (cell) 155 Beaver Street, Milford, MA 01757 USA d3e...@gmail.com >>o In bullet 16, to correct an erratum, the last paragraph is >> replaced by this: >> >> One possible selection method is described in RFC 3797 [1]. >> >> Perfectly correct, but I don't think this document is the place to >> correct random errata. > > I was (and am) ambivalent here. I did not have this in my first > version. SM did. When we merged the proposals, I thought it was a > good idea to fix that. But you're right that it's rather off topic, > and the right place to do that would be 3777bis, which this decidedly > is NOT. > > I'm inclined to pull it out (having not checked that with SM yet, > though). Does anyone (including SM) think it definitely needs to be > in here? > > Barry
Re: Some thoughts about draft-leiba-3777upd-eligibility-02.txt
> I have one discussion point and a number of small nits... Fine comments, all; thanks for taking the time. I don't really see the discussion point as needing discussion. You're right, and I'll fix that set of stuff in the next version. I could say why certain text got in there in the first place (from early comments and discussion), but it doesn't matter: I agree that it should be changed. There are just two points in your comments that I want to pursue: > 15.2. People serving in the IETF Secretariat and the RFC Editor >may not volunteer to serve as voting members of the >nominating committee. > > Slight problem with the term "RFC Editor" since this is a single person > and also a service function. I suspect you mean the latter. I do, and I actually had the same problem with it when I wrote it as you do. So help me, please: How *should* this be put? I don't like, "and those employed in the RFC Editor function," and I really can't think of a concise, clean, accurate way to write it down, though we all (today) know what it means. Text, please, someone. >o In bullet 16, to correct an erratum, the last paragraph is > replaced by this: > > One possible selection method is described in RFC 3797 [1]. > > Perfectly correct, but I don't think this document is the place to > correct random errata. I was (and am) ambivalent here. I did not have this in my first version. SM did. When we merged the proposals, I thought it was a good idea to fix that. But you're right that it's rather off topic, and the right place to do that would be 3777bis, which this decidedly is NOT. I'm inclined to pull it out (having not checked that with SM yet, though). Does anyone (including SM) think it definitely needs to be in here? Barry
Some thoughts about draft-leiba-3777upd-eligibility-02.txt
Hi, I have one discussion point and a number of small nits... Cheers, Adrian --- Discussion point. The Abstract makes it clear that the purpose of the document is to handle the (new) IAOC and to resolve uncertainty about liaisons and ex-officio members of the IAB, IESG, and IAOC. This seems reasonable to me. However, the document very quickly launches into a discussion of other people to exclude from NomCom. It does this by introducing the concept of a "conflict of interest." There may be a valid debate to have about conflict of interest, but I personally find it a very long wedge, and although there may be clear-cut cases at either extreme, it is by no means clear where to draw the line. I find the excuse used (that those excluded are unlikely to volunteer) as rather poor taste. It may be true that such people have not volunteered in the past, but that should not be used as a reason. You are removing rights that people previously had - you should have good, stand-alone reasons and not depend on whether or not earlier holders of certain posts exercised those rights. So: 1. Since I think that CoI is a label on a really nasty box you don't want to open, I would prefer you to not use the term. You do perfectly well when you say: This document also excludes certain individuals who are directly paid for their work with the IETF... I think you can leave it at that. 2. Please align the Abstract and the content by updating the Abstract to mention exclusion of paid individuals. 3. Please don't lean on RFC 3777 for the introduction of CoI to this document (you do this in Section 1). RFC 3777 does not use the term and does not appear to have any text that is related to the concept. If you believe there is good reason to exclude volunteers from NomCom, you should make that case in this document. 4. Remove the commentary on whether those excluded are or are not likely to volunteer. --- Section 1 (petty) OLD The selection of the NomCom, therefore, excludes those individuals who are in top leadership positions currently. NEW The selection of the NomCom, therefore, excludes those individuals who are in top leadership positions at the time of selection. END The point being that it is not those in the positions on 8/18/12 who are excluded. --- Section 1 (punctuation) RFC 3777 specifies that "sitting members" of the IAB and IESG "may not volunteer to serve on the nominating committee". Since that document was written the IETF Administrative Oversight Committee (IAOC) was formed, and that body is not covered by RFC 3777. There is also uncertainty about whether ex-officio members liaisons, and such are included as "sitting members". s/members liaisons/members, liaisons/ --- Section 1 (tone) OLD This document also excludes certain individuals who are directly paid for their work with the IETF, and who, therefore, have a direct personal financial incentive in the selection of the leadership boards. NEW This document also excludes certain individuals who are directly paid for their work with the IETF, and who, therefore, might have a direct personal financial incentive in the selection of the leadership boards. END Let us not assume that the system is completely corrupt! --- Section 2 (editorial) The section title is wrong. You probably need "Changes to RFC 3" Then you have: OLD This document makes the following updates to add the IAOC to certain of the processes that are not covered there. NEW This document makes the following updates to add the IAOC to certain of the processes, and to introduce other small process changes as described in Section 1. END ...and delete Note that the change below to Section 4, bullet 15 also puts additional restrictions on who may volunteer as a voting member of the NomCom. --- 15.2. People serving in the IETF Secretariat and the RFC Editor may not volunteer to serve as voting members of the nominating committee. Slight problem with the term "RFC Editor" since this is a single person and also a service function. I suspect you mean the latter. --- o In bullet 16, to correct an erratum, the last paragraph is replaced by this: One possible selection method is described in RFC 3797 [1]. Perfectly correct, but I don't think this document is the place to correct random errata.
