Update to RFC 3777 to Clarify Nominating Committee Eligibility of IETF Leadership
draft-leiba-3777upd-eligibility-06

I am ballotting "Yes" on this document on the assumption that the
changes already suggested by Barry will be made.  Additionally, 
the resolution of the word "leadership" in the paragraph of 
Section 1 as suggested by Pete Resnick.

The following Comments are provided as observations to the authors 
and neither require action nor further discussion.

---

Note that the document title still includes the sensitive word
"leadership".

---

The last sentence of the Abstract is a little vague.

   This
   document updates RFC 3777 and clarifies those situations.

s/and clarifies/to clarify/

s/those situations/the rules as they apply to all members of the IAB,
IESG, and IAOC./

---

Table of contents bugbear alert!

Spending one page of a 4 page document on the ToC, is (IMHO) a waste of
e-paper.

---

Section 1 para 2

   That said, it would be bad to eliminate people who have the
   experience necessary to understand the IETF process: those
   individuals can bring a broader perspective to the nominating
   committee and will help ensure that the people it selects are better
   prepared to fulfill the roles.

I completely agree with the sentiment of this paragraph, but I don't see
what relevance it has in this document. In fact, it seems that the point
of this document is to deliberately exclude some people with that 
experience.

You could either delete this paragraph entirely (why not?) or
restructure the section so that this point is made before the points
about self-selection (i.e., the intention is to include as many with
experience as is possible, but to exclude those who are already
sitting).

---

Section 1 para 3

   This document
   updates RFC 3777 and clarifies those situations,

Comment as for Abstract.

---

Section 1

   In order to allow the largest reasonable list of potential nominating
   committee members, RFC 3777 does not exclude participation from
   working group chairs, IRTF research group chairs, members of
   directorates and special review teams, and members of other advisory
   bodies. 

I think the reason for non-exclusion is that it is not felt that the
inclusion compromises the self-selection concerns.  To say "in order to
allow the largest reasonable..." questions the motives of the authors 
and introduces consideration of "reasonable".

Why not delete the first clause?

---

Section 2

   may not volunteer to serve
   as voting members of the nominating committee

Do you mean "may not volunteer" or "may not be selected"?

That is (pedantically), putting your name forward is not something that
we can control.

I read http://trac.tools.ietf.org/group/iesg/trac/wiki/PendingUpdate

- OLD

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.

NEW
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 before the IAOC was formed, that body is not
   covered by RFC 3777.

Actually after reading it many times and reading the similar sentence in section 1, I finally understood: you're missing a coma for my non English native speaker background ;-)
So the new proposal. 

NEW-NEW
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.



- 
Section 1
   those individuals can bring
   a broader perspective to the nominating committee and will help
   ensure that the people it selects are better prepared to fulfill the
   roles.

better than what?
Isn't better to say?
   those individuals can bring
   a broader perspective to the nominating committee and will help
   ensure that the people it selects are best prepared to fulfill the
   roles.

- 
As I mentioned in a different thread, I would keep the ToC

Based on Barry's tentative -06 no comments from me.

Thank you for addressing my concern.