Eligibility for the 2020-2021 Nominating Committee
draft-iesg-nomcom-eligibility-2020-03

[Ballot comment]
It seems that my understanding of how things work and the intent of this document
was incorrect, so removing my discuss position.  There is apparently not a simple way
to define a mechanism for creating a recall committee after the scheduled time for IETF
108, and it's inappropriate to attempt to do so in this document.

Section 2

I wonder if there is a concise way to include in interpretation (2)
involving "three of six" that accurately reflects the "count
participation at 107" case.  (I don't have one to offer, and leaving the
text as-is would be tolerable.)

  In judging rough consensus the IESG has considered the arguments and
  levels of support in favor of and against each option: largely,
  issues of fairness to newer participants, acceptance of more
  participants in the volunteer pool, and greatest adherence to the
  spirit of the rules defined in BCP 10, which is the community-
  consensus basis we are working from.

nit(?): are these all written in the "in favor" sense?  I'm not actually
sure how to interpret the "against" text in this context.

Section 3

I agree with Michael Richardson's suggestion to clarify that this is
"interpretation 1".

  The following text modifies, for the 2020-2021 NomCom selection only,
  the first two paragraphs (quoted above) of Section 4.14 of BCP 10
  [RFC8713]:

But this is not just for NomCom selection; it also applies to the "rules
that relate to NomCom eligibility or process".  Should we instead say
"NomCom cycle"?  (Is that well-defined?  RFC 8713 uses the phrase twice
but does not give an explicit definition.)

Section 6.2

I'm curious why the [VIRTUAL107] reference was chosen to be
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-announce/Gqc4-GIsnvccObQrrciL_Vm0HMU/
as opposed to
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-announce/cVDlJ4fVJIkfakBysTfsFchERCs/
.

[Ballot comment]
s/The 2020-2021 Nominating Committee (NomCom) needs to be formed/The 2020-2021 Nominating Committee (NomCom) is to be formed/

"That interpretation will apply to the seating of that NomCom and to any rules that relate to NomCom eligibility or process before the scheduled time for IETF 108." --> I don't understand this construct "any rules that relate to NomCom ... process." Is there something besides one's eligibility to serve on the NomCom that this document is changing? If not, why does this change apply to any NomCom process rules?

[Ballot discuss]
My understanding is that the intent of this document is to avoid a sharp
"cliff" wherein several IETF procedures become invalid or unusable
around the time of IETF 108, by postponing that cliff until around the
time of IETF 111, on the assumption that a longer-term solution will be
in place at that time.  However, I think I need some help convincing
myself that the current text succeeds in doing so, so let's discuss
it...

In particular, I'm looking at the ability to create a Recall Committee,
an event that might well occur after IETF 108 (and thus, after the
2020-2021 NomCom has been seated).  Currently in the Introduction and
Section 3 we have text such as:

  This update is an emergency interpretation of the intent of BCP 10
  for this current exceptional situation only, and applies only to
  [...] any rules that relate to NomCom eligibility or process before
  IETF 108.

My question comes in, then, as to whether a hypothetical formation of a
Recall Committee after IETF 108 is or relies on an event or process that
is excluded by the clause about "process before IETF 108".  RFC 8713
does not immediatly bring clarity, discussing that:

%  The recall committee is created according to the same rules as is the
%  NomCom with the qualifications that both the person being
%  investigated and the parties requesting the recall must not be a
%  member of the recall committee in any capacity.

Since the volunteer qualifications that cover both NomCom and Recall
Committee members refer to "the date on which the solicitation for
NomCom volunteers was submitted for distribution to the IETF community",
it seems that we use the same date (and thus the same set of IETF
meetings for the 3 of 5 criteria) for the attendance requirement of the
volunteers, so that is not a problem.  But does the act of (say) running
the selection process constitute a "NomCom eligibility or process"?  I'm
not sure how to make a clear interpretation here.

I think what we are concerned about is the requirement for attendance
that has to have applied before IETF 108, but we may not necessarily
want to exclude all things that happen after IETF 108.  For example, we
might arrive at a phrasing that this will apply to "events that occurred
before the scheduled time for IETF 108".

[Ballot comment]
Section 2

I wonder if there is a concise way to include in interpretation (2)
involving "three of six" that accurately reflects the "count
participation at 107" case.  (I don't have one to offer, and leaving the
text as-is would be tolerable.)

  In judging rough consensus the IESG has considered the arguments and
  levels of support in favor of and against each option: largely,
  issues of fairness to newer participants, acceptance of more
  participants in the volunteer pool, and greatest adherence to the
  spirit of the rules defined in BCP 10, which is the community-
  consensus basis we are working from.

nit(?): are these all written in the "in favor" sense?  I'm not actually
sure how to interpret the "against" text in this context.

Section 3

I agree with Michael Richardson's suggestion to clarify that this is
"interpretation 1".

  The following text modifies, for the 2020-2021 NomCom selection only,
  the first two paragraphs (quoted above) of Section 4.14 of BCP 10
  [RFC8713]:

But this is not just for NomCom selection; it also applies to the "rules
that relate to NomCom eligibility or process".  Should we instead say
"NomCom cycle"?  (Is that well-defined?  RFC 8713 uses the phrase twice
but does not give an explicit definition.)

Section 6.2

I'm curious why the [VIRTUAL107] reference was chosen to be
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-announce/Gqc4-GIsnvccObQrrciL_Vm0HMU/
as opposed to
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-announce/cVDlJ4fVJIkfakBysTfsFchERCs/
.

(Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

The IANA Functions Operator has reviewed draft-iesg-nomcom-eligibility-2020-00, which is currently in Last Call, and has the following comments:

We understand that this document doesn't require any registry actions.

While it's often helpful for a document's IANA Considerations section to remain in place upon publication even if there are no actions, if the authors strongly prefer to remove it, we do not object.

If this assessment is not accurate, please respond as soon as possible.

Thank you,

Sabrina Tanamal
Senior IANA Services Specialist

The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2020-04-30):

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC: superuser@gmail.com, draft-iesg-nomcom-eligibility-2020@ietf.org
Reply-To: last-call@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (Eligibility for the 2020-2021 Nominating Committee) to Best Current Practice


The IESG has received a request from an individual submitter to consider the
following document: - 'Eligibility for the 2020-2021 Nominating Committee'
  as Best Current Practice

The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits final
comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
last-call@ietf.org mailing lists by 2020-04-30. Exceptionally, comments may
be sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the beginning
of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.

Abstract


  The 2020-2021 Nominating Committee (NomCom) needs to be formed
  between IETF 107 and IETF 108, and the issue of eligibility of who
  can serve on that NomCom needs clarification.  This document provides
  a one-time interpretation of the eligibility rules that is required
  for the exceptional situation of the cancellation of the in-person
  IETF 107 meeting.  This document only affects the seating of the
  2020-2021 NomCom, and does not set a precedent for the future.




The file can be obtained via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-iesg-nomcom-eligibility-2020/

IESG discussion can be tracked via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-iesg-nomcom-eligibility-2020/ballot/


No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.