IAB, IESG, IETF Trust, and IETF LLC Selection, Confirmation, and Recall Process: Operation of the IETF Nominating and Recall Committees
draft-ietf-iasa2-rfc7437bis-09

[Ballot comment]
I agree with Barry's editorial suggestions.

I am conflicted about "just fix IASA 2.0 related stuff" versa folding other updates. I think having multiple documents would make figuring out the current process difficult, but I appreciate the desire to limit changes done in this document.

[Ballot comment]
* Section 3.4

The additional guidance on terms length and term limits for the IETF LLC Board is in Section *6* of draft-ietf-iasa2-rfc4071bis and not Section 5.

Also

s/all such members or Directors/all such members, trustees or Directors/

in order to be consistent with the rest of the document which differentiates between members and trustees.

[Ballot comment]
The following discussion has happened (and thanks to all for having it).  It's clear now what the exception referred to is, and I have below, a suggested fix to the text in Section 3.8, which is unclear enough to cause problems if the issue comes up:

— Section 3.8 —

  However, the following exception is permitted in the case where the
  candidate for an open position is currently a sitting member of the
  IAB.  It is consistent with these rules for the announcements of a
  resignation of a sitting member of the IAB and of the confirmed
  candidate for the mid-term vacancy created by that sitting member on
  the IAB to all occur at the same time as long as the actual sequence
  of events that occurred did so in the following order:

  1.  The NomCom completes the advice and consent process for the open
      position being filled by the candidate currently sitting on the
      IAB.

  2.  The newly confirmed candidate resigns from their current position
      on the IAB.

  3.  The IAB Chair (or the Managing Director, IETF Secretariat, if no
      Chair has been named or the vacancy was created via the departure
      of the IAB Chair) informs the NomCom of the mid-term vacancy.

  4.  The NomCom acts on the request to fill the mid-term vacancy.

I didn’t understand what this is saying, and, therefore, didn’t understand how it’s possible to comply with it, when the announcement of an open position is required.  I now understand that the exception is that the NomCom is allowed *not* to explicitly announce a vacancy on the IAB that's created by moving an IAB member to another body, because we assume that anyone who wants an IAB position has already put her name into the original pool.  Given that (and I have confirmed it with meeting minutes from the discussion that led to RFC 3777 and from a chat with the editor of 3777), I would very much like to see the following clarification:

OLD
  However, the following exception is permitted in the case where the
  candidate for an open position is currently a sitting member of the
  IAB.
NEW
  However, an exception is permitted in the case where the
  candidate for an open position is currently a sitting member of the
  IAB.  Because there is already a pool of candidates for a set of IAB
  positions, the NomCom does not a need to inform the community
  explicitly that one more position is becoming available, so par of the
  process can overlap.
END

If the decision is to not add that clarification, but to deal with it in an upcoming process revision, this comment will serve as documentation that we can point to in case the issue should come up.

===================================

There are a lot of comments here, but they're basically all editorial.  Some of them relate to the IASA2 changes, and I’ve tried to separate those out; please pay particular attention to them.

General: While it’s not necessary, it would be helpful if the many places that say “elsewhere in this document” had internal section-number citations instead.

*********************************
*** Begin IASA2-related edits ***

This section of edits directly relates to the changes made for IASA2.

— Abstract —
The abstract says that it’s “based on RFC3777 and RFC7437”, but 3777 was obsoleted by 7437.  Does it really make sense to mention 3777 in the Abstract?  I think it isn’t, and suggest:

OLD
  This document
  is based on RFC3777 and RFC7437 and has been updated to reflect the
  changes introduced by IASA 2.0.
NEW
  This document
  is based on and replaces RFC7437, and has been updated to reflect
  the changes introduced by IASA 2.0.
END

— Introduction —
Here I think it’s worth mentioning 3777 as part of the history, but “updates” isn’t strong enough for clarity.  Perhaps:

OLD
  This document is a revision of [RFC7437] that updates it to be
  consistent with the IASA 2.0 changes.  RFC 7437 was based on
  [RFC3777] that consolidated and updated other RFCs that updated that
  document into a single specification.  The result is a complete
  specification of the process by which members of the Internet
  Architecture Board (IAB) and Internet Engineering Steering Group
  (IESG), some Trustees of the IETF Trust, and some Directors of the
  IETF Administration LLC (IETF LLC), are selected, confirmed, and
  recalled.
NEW
  This document is a revision of [RFC7437] that updates and replaces
  it, and is consistent with the IASA 2.0 changes.  RFC 7437 was based
  on [RFC3777] and its updates, and consolidated and updated the process
  into a single specification at that time.  This document is now the
  sole and complete specification of the process by which members of the
  Internet Architecture Board (IAB) and Internet Engineering Steering Group
  (IESG), some Trustees of the IETF Trust, and some Directors of the
  IETF Administration LLC (IETF LLC), are selected, confirmed, and
  recalled.
END

Does that work?

We use “IETF LLC Director” (3 times) and “IETF LLC Board Director” (6 times) interchangeably; we should pick one and use it consistently.

— Section 3.2 —

  The principal functions of the NomCom are to review each open IESG,
  IAB, IETF Trust, and IETF LLC Board position and to nominate either
  its incumbent or a superior candidate.

As “nominee” is defined as someone being considered by the NomCom, and “candidate” is the one selected, this should say “and to select”, not “and to nominate”.

Similarly for “candidate that is nominated” in the fourth paragraph and “to which he or she is nominated” in the last paragraph. (Note that “nominated” *is* correct in the fifth paragraph.)

— Section 3.3 —

  or if a member or Director unexpectedly resigns.

“if a member, a Director, or a Trustee” (and similarly in the middle of Section 3.4)

— Section 3.4 —

  Confirmed IETF LLC Board Director candidates are expected to serve at
  least a three-year term, except if a nominating or selection body
  decides to use a shorter term to allow for initial staggered
  appointments.

Given that the initial staggered appointments have already been made, the “except” part seems overtaken by events.  Does it really make sense to publish that now, especially as the reference in the following sentence covers that situation?  (And similarly for the next paragraph about Trustees.)

For all three paragraphs, “a three year term” doesn’t match “candidates” in number.  I suggest making them both singular, so “A confirmed IESG or IAB candidate is expected to serve at least a two-year term.”  And similarly for the other two.  Alternatively, we could change “a two-year term” to “two-year terms”, making them both plural.

In both the Director and Trustee paragraphs, “additional guidance on terms length” should say “term length”.

  The term of a confirmed candidate selected according to the mid-term
  vacancy rules may be less than a full term (two years for IESG and
  IAB, three years for the IETF Trust and IETF LLC), as stated
  elsewhere in this document.

Why repeat the term length here?  I would remove the parenthesized bit.

— Section 3.5 —

  4.  The term of the confirmed candidate will be either:

      A.  the remainder of the term of the open position if that
          remainder is not less than one year or

      B.  the remainder of the term of the open position plus the next
          two-year term if that remainder is less than one year.

This is clearly written for the IAB and IESG, and hasn’t been changed to account for Directors and Trustees.

— Section 3.7.3 —

  The sitting IESG members review the IETF Trust Trustee Candidates.

There should be only one (as with the Board candidate in the next paragraph), and it shouldn’t be capitalized.

— Sections 7.1.1 and 7.1.2 —
These sections come from the merging of RFC 7776 into 7437, and are unnecessarily confusing. The way they are written makes it sound as if a Recall Committee Chair is appointed only for an Ombudsteam-initiated recall and not in the case of a community petition.  Here’s what I suggest: As Section 7.1 already says that recalls initiated by the Ombudsteam follow 7776, there’s no need to say it again in 7.1.2.  So how about this?:

OLD
  The Ombudsteam process allows the Ombudsteam to form a recall
  petition on its own without requiring 20 signatories from the
  community.  As defined in [RFC7776], the petition and its signatories
  (the Ombudsteam) shall be announced to the IETF community, and a
  Recall Committee Chair shall be appointed to complete the Recall
  Committee process.  It is expected that the Recall Committee will
  receive a briefing from the Ombudsteam explaining why recall is
  considered an appropriate remedy.
NEW
  The Ombudsteam process allows the Ombudsteam to form a recall
  petition on its own without requiring 20 signatories from the
  community.  The petition and its signatories (the Ombudsteam)
  shall be announced to the IETF community, as with a community
  petition, and it is expected that the Recall Committee (see
  below) will receive a briefing from the Ombudsteam explaining
  why recall is considered an appropriate remedy.
END

Then we let 7.2 et seq explain the common parts of the recall process, including appointment of the Recall Committee Chair.

— Appendix C —

  4.  There are no term limits explicitly because the issue of
      continuity versus turnover should be evaluated each year
      according to the expectations of the IETF community, as it is
      understood by each NomCom.

Make it, “There are no term limits for the IAB and IESG explicitly….”  There are now term limits for Directors and Trustees.

— Appendix D —

OLD
  3.  The Chair contacts the IESG, IAB, and Internet Society Board of
        Trustees and requests a liaison.
NEW
  3.  The Chair contacts the IESG, IAB, Internet Society Board of
        Trustees, IETF Trust, and IETF LLC and requests a liaison from
        each.
END

*** End IASA2-related edits ***
*******************************

These comments relate to original text or are otherwise not important for the IASA2 changes.

I do wish we could avoid “IETF Trust Trustees”, but that ship has sunk sailed.

— Section 3.1 (and 4.6 and 5.6) —

Nit: The word “comprised” is correctly used as “the whole comprises its parts”, and is used correctly in Section 4.3.  It’s used in the document three times incorrectly (“the whole is comprised of its parts”, for which the correct word is “composed”).  Please change the three instances of “is comprised of” either to “is composed of” or “comprises” (I prefer the latter).

— Section 3.4 —

  For confirmed candidates of the IESG, the terms begin no later than
  when the currently sitting members' terms end on the last day of the
  meeting.  A term may begin or end no sooner than the first day of the
  meeting and no later than the last day of the meeting as determined

This seems like an editing error.  I would merge the two sentences:

NEW
  For the IESG, the term of the sitting member ends and the term of the
  confirmed candidate begins no sooner than the first day of the meeting
  and no later than the last day of the meeting as determined
END

  For candidates confirmed under the mid-term vacancy rules, the term
  begins as soon as possible after the confirmation.

I would say “as soon as practicable”.  It’s quite possible that it would be *possible* to begin a term, but there could be reasons to wait a bit.

— Section 3.5 —

  1.  When there is only one official NomCom, the body with the mid-
      term vacancy relegates the responsibility to fill the vacancy

While “relegates” *can* mean “delegates”, the general sense of “relegate” is negative ("We relegated it to the trash pile.").  Better to use “delegates”, or simply “gives”.  (Twice in this paragraph and once in Section 4.2.)

— Section 3.6 —

  The NomCom and confirming body members will be exposed to
  confidential information as a result of their deliberations, their
  interactions with those they consult, and from those who provide
  requested supporting information.

The list is not parallel (the third item doesn’t work).

NEW
  The NomCom and confirming body members will be exposed to
  confidential information as a result of their deliberations and
  their interactions with those they consult, and from those who
  provide requested supporting information.
END

  The NomCom
  may disclose a list of names of nominees who are willing to be
  considered for positions under review to the community

“under review to the community” reads funny.  I would move “to the community” to be after “list of names”.

— Section 3.7.3 —

  The confirming bodies conduct their review using all information

Their “reviews”, plural.

  and the confirming bodies' interpretation

The bodies’ “interpretations”, plural.

  the NomCom must select alternate candidates for the rejected
  candidates.

“alternative” candidates.

— Section 4.1 —

  The completion of the selection and organization process is due at
  least one month prior to the Third IETF.  This ensures the NomCom is
  fully operational and available for interviews and consultation
  during the Third IETF.

As selection is normally done prior to the *Second* IETF now, is it worth saying that (not requiring it; the requirement as stated is fine)?  Something like, “In practice, the selection process is generally completed prior to the Second IETF, so that the Second IETF can be used for organization.”  I think it’s especially important to say this because otherwise it seems like the old and new NomComs are only required to overlap by one month, and Section 4.2 says they’re meant to overlap for “approximately three months”.

— Section 4.2 —

  When the prior year's NomCom is filling a mid-term vacancy during the
  period of time that the terms overlap, the NomCom operate
  independently.

“NomComs”, plural.

— Section 4.6 —

  Any such appointment must be temporary and does not absolve the Chair
  of any or all responsibility for ensuring the NomCom completes its
  assigned duties in a timely fashion.

Then where does it say how to permanently replace a NomCom Chair who really does have to leave permanently (say, death or incapacity, unexpected family issues, or even just is no longer willing to do it)?

— Section 4.8 —
This section doesn’t say anything about liaison appointment from the ISOC BoT; it probably should.

— Section 4.10 —

  The prior year's Chair may select a designee from a pool composed of
  the voting volunteers of the prior year's committee and all prior
  Chairs if the Chair is unavailable.  If the prior year's Chair is
  unavailable or is unable or unwilling to make such a designation in a
  timely fashion, the Chair of the current year's committee may select
  a designee in consultation with the Internet Society President.

For clarity, “if the prior year’s Chair is unavailable,” because there are two Chairs under discussion.

Why is it that the prior year’s Chair can pick someone else on her own, but the current Chair has to consult with the ISOC President to do the same thing?

— Section 4.14 —

  Members of the IETF community must have attended at least three of
  the last five IETF meetings in order to volunteer.

I hesitate to say this, given other ongoing discussions, but “attended at least three of the last five IETF meetings in person in order to volunteer” has to be clear here, especially as we now have formal registration for remote participants.

  Volunteers must provide their full name, email address, and primary
  company or organization affiliation (if any) when volunteering.

Hm, number-agreement problem (plural volunteers and singular name, etc.), but it’s sticky to fix it and keep it gender-free.  We could go with the custom of using “their” as gender-free singular and say, “Each volunteer must provide their full name….”  Or we could make it all plural (which I think I like a tad better):

NEW
  Volunteers must provide their full names, email addresses, and
  primary company or organization affiliations (if any) when
  volunteering.
END

— Section 4.16 —

  The pool of volunteers must be enumerated or otherwise indicated
  according to the needs of the selection method to be used.

Maybe “otherwise annotated”?  “Indicated” doesn’t seem like the right word.

— Section 4.17 —

  the same affiliation, then the volunteer should notify the Chair who
  will determine the appropriate action.

Comma before “who”, please.

  During at least the one week challenge period, the Chair must contact

What does that mean?  Is it meant to mean “during the challenge period, which is a least one week”?  If so, just say “During the challenge period,” as the one week length has already been stated. If it means something else, what?

— Section 4.18 —

  The Chair works with the members of the committee to organize itself
  in preparation for completing its assigned duties.

I don’t think “itself” works here.  I’d say, “The Chair works with the NomCom members to organize the committee….”

— Section 5.15 —

  Rejected nominees, who consented to their nomination, and rejected
  candidates must be notified prior to announcing the confirmed
  candidates.

The comma before “who” shouldn’t be there.

— Section 6 —

  3.  The arbiter investigates the issue making every reasonable effort
      to understand both sides of the issue.

This is better with a comma before “making”.

— Section 7 —

  It applies to IESG and IAB Members, the NomCom appointed IETF Trust
  Trustees, and the NomCom appointed IETF LLC Directors.

“NomCom-appointed” should be hyphenated both times, and also twice in Section 7.1.

— Section 7.3 —
More number disagreement (plural subject and “a member”).

NEW
  The recall committee is created according to the same rules as is the
  NomCom, with the qualification that both the person being investigated
  and the parties requesting the recall must not be involved in the recall
  committee in any capacity.
END

— Section 7.7 —
It would be worth adding, for absolute clarity, “The Recall Committee does not itself fill the open position.”

[Ballot comment]
rfc7437 says (Section 4.3)

  The Chair of last year's NomCom serves as an advisor

Everywhere in the rest of the document "prior year's" seems preferred. And there is in fact an instance of that for the chair (Section 4.10): The Chair of the prior year's nominating committee ....

so I would
s/The Chair of last year's NomCom serves as an advisor/The Chair of the prior year's NomCom serves as an advisor/

[Ballot comment]
Thanks to all the participants in the IASA2 effort for the work you've
done in getting the related documents updated. I only have three minor
comments in this document, where it seems to have been incompletely
updated with regard to IETF Trust Trustees.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

§3.3:

>  e.g., if
>  the IESG, IAB, IETF Trust, or IETF LLC Board have reorganized prior
>  to this process and created new positions, if there are an odd number
>  of current positions, or if a member or Director unexpectedly
>  resigns.

Suggest: "...if a Member, Director, or Trustee..."

In particular, mixing the lowercase "member" with the uppercase "Director"
is rather jarring.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

§3.4:

>  which it may assign a term of not more than three years to ensure
>  that all such members or Directors will not be reviewed at the same
>  time.

Same comment as above ("Member, Director, or Trustee")

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

§3.8:

> 3.8.  Sitting Members and Directors
>
>  The following rules apply to nominees and candidates who are
>  currently sitting members of the IESG or IAB, or IETF LLC Board
>  Directors and who are not sitting in an open position being filled by
>  the NomCom.

The title and opening paragraph of this section omit "Trustees," although
the remainder of the section mentions Trust vacancies. I think we need to add
mention of Trustees to both the section title and its opening paragraph.

[Ballot discuss]
I have one point I'd like to discuss, because think the text is unclear enough to cause problems if the issue comes up:

— Section 3.8 —

  However, the following exception is permitted in the case where the
  candidate for an open position is currently a sitting member of the
  IAB.  It is consistent with these rules for the announcements of a
  resignation of a sitting member of the IAB and of the confirmed
  candidate for the mid-term vacancy created by that sitting member on
  the IAB to all occur at the same time as long as the actual sequence
  of events that occurred did so in the following order:

  1.  The NomCom completes the advice and consent process for the open
      position being filled by the candidate currently sitting on the
      IAB.

  2.  The newly confirmed candidate resigns from their current position
      on the IAB.

  3.  The IAB Chair (or the Managing Director, IETF Secretariat, if no
      Chair has been named or the vacancy was created via the departure
      of the IAB Chair) informs the NomCom of the mid-term vacancy.

  4.  The NomCom acts on the request to fill the mid-term vacancy.

Either I don’t understand what this is saying or I don’t understand how it’s possible.  Paraphrasing, the first paragraph says that it’s OK for the announcement of the sitting IAB member’s resignation to happen at the same time as the announcement of that member’s confirmed replacement.  That means that at the time of the resignation, the NomCom already had to have selected the replacement, given that selection to the confirming body, and had it confirmed.  Which means that step 4 had to have happened before step 2, or at least before step 3, no?

[Ballot comment]
There are a lot of comments here, but they're basically all editorial.  Some of them relate to the IASA2 changes, and I’ve tried to separate those out; please pay particular attention to them.

General: While it’s not necessary, it would be helpful if the many places that say “elsewhere in this document” had internal section-number citations instead.

*********************************
*** Begin IASA2-related edits ***

This section of edits directly relates to the changes made for IASA2.

— Abstract —
The abstract says that it’s “based on RFC3777 and RFC7437”, but 3777 was obsoleted by 7437.  Does it really make sense to mention 3777 in the Abstract?  I think it isn’t, and suggest:

OLD
  This document
  is based on RFC3777 and RFC7437 and has been updated to reflect the
  changes introduced by IASA 2.0.
NEW
  This document
  is based on and replaces RFC7437, and has been updated to reflect
  the changes introduced by IASA 2.0.
END

— Introduction —
Here I think it’s worth mentioning 3777 as part of the history, but “updates” isn’t strong enough for clarity.  Perhaps:

OLD
  This document is a revision of [RFC7437] that updates it to be
  consistent with the IASA 2.0 changes.  RFC 7437 was based on
  [RFC3777] that consolidated and updated other RFCs that updated that
  document into a single specification.  The result is a complete
  specification of the process by which members of the Internet
  Architecture Board (IAB) and Internet Engineering Steering Group
  (IESG), some Trustees of the IETF Trust, and some Directors of the
  IETF Administration LLC (IETF LLC), are selected, confirmed, and
  recalled.
NEW
  This document is a revision of [RFC7437] that updates and replaces
  it, and is consistent with the IASA 2.0 changes.  RFC 7437 was based
  on [RFC3777] and its updates, and consolidated and updated the process
  into a single specification at that time.  This document is now the
  sole and complete specification of the process by which members of the
  Internet Architecture Board (IAB) and Internet Engineering Steering Group
  (IESG), some Trustees of the IETF Trust, and some Directors of the
  IETF Administration LLC (IETF LLC), are selected, confirmed, and
  recalled.
END

Does that work?

We use “IETF LLC Director” (3 times) and “IETF LLC Board Director” (6 times) interchangeably; we should pick one and use it consistently.

— Section 3.2 —

  The principal functions of the NomCom are to review each open IESG,
  IAB, IETF Trust, and IETF LLC Board position and to nominate either
  its incumbent or a superior candidate.

As “nominee” is defined as someone being considered by the NomCom, and “candidate” is the one selected, this should say “and to select”, not “and to nominate”.

Similarly for “candidate that is nominated” in the fourth paragraph and “to which he or she is nominated” in the last paragraph. (Note that “nominated” *is* correct in the fifth paragraph.)

— Section 3.3 —

  or if a member or Director unexpectedly resigns.

“if a member, a Director, or a Trustee” (and similarly in the middle of Section 3.4)

— Section 3.4 —

  Confirmed IETF LLC Board Director candidates are expected to serve at
  least a three-year term, except if a nominating or selection body
  decides to use a shorter term to allow for initial staggered
  appointments.

Given that the initial staggered appointments have already been made, the “except” part seems overtaken by events.  Does it really make sense to publish that now, especially as the reference in the following sentence covers that situation?  (And similarly for the next paragraph about Trustees.)

For all three paragraphs, “a three year term” doesn’t match “candidates” in number.  I suggest making them both singular, so “A confirmed IESG or IAB candidate is expected to serve at least a two-year term.”  And similarly for the other two.  Alternatively, we could change “a two-year term” to “two-year terms”, making them both plural.

In both the Director and Trustee paragraphs, “additional guidance on terms length” should say “term length”.

  The term of a confirmed candidate selected according to the mid-term
  vacancy rules may be less than a full term (two years for IESG and
  IAB, three years for the IETF Trust and IETF LLC), as stated
  elsewhere in this document.

Why repeat the term length here?  I would remove the parenthesized bit.

— Section 3.5 —

  4.  The term of the confirmed candidate will be either:

      A.  the remainder of the term of the open position if that
          remainder is not less than one year or

      B.  the remainder of the term of the open position plus the next
          two-year term if that remainder is less than one year.

This is clearly written for the IAB and IESG, and hasn’t been changed to account for Directors and Trustees.

— Section 3.7.3 —

  The sitting IESG members review the IETF Trust Trustee Candidates.

There should be only one (as with the Board candidate in the next paragraph), and it shouldn’t be capitalized.

— Sections 7.1.1 and 7.1.2 —
These sections come from the merging of RFC 7776 into 7437, and are unnecessarily confusing. The way they are written makes it sound as if a Recall Committee Chair is appointed only for an Ombudsteam-initiated recall and not in the case of a community petition.  Here’s what I suggest: As Section 7.1 already says that recalls initiated by the Ombudsteam follow 7776, there’s no need to say it again in 7.1.2.  So how about this?:

OLD
  The Ombudsteam process allows the Ombudsteam to form a recall
  petition on its own without requiring 20 signatories from the
  community.  As defined in [RFC7776], the petition and its signatories
  (the Ombudsteam) shall be announced to the IETF community, and a
  Recall Committee Chair shall be appointed to complete the Recall
  Committee process.  It is expected that the Recall Committee will
  receive a briefing from the Ombudsteam explaining why recall is
  considered an appropriate remedy.
NEW
  The Ombudsteam process allows the Ombudsteam to form a recall
  petition on its own without requiring 20 signatories from the
  community.  The petition and its signatories (the Ombudsteam)
  shall be announced to the IETF community, as with a community
  petition, and it is expected that the Recall Committee (see
  below) will receive a briefing from the Ombudsteam explaining
  why recall is considered an appropriate remedy.
END

Then we let 7.2 et seq explain the common parts of the recall process, including appointment of the Recall Committee Chair.

— Appendix C —

  4.  There are no term limits explicitly because the issue of
      continuity versus turnover should be evaluated each year
      according to the expectations of the IETF community, as it is
      understood by each NomCom.

Make it, “There are no term limits for the IAB and IESG explicitly….”  There are now term limits for Directors and Trustees.

— Appendix D —

OLD
  3.  The Chair contacts the IESG, IAB, and Internet Society Board of
        Trustees and requests a liaison.
NEW
  3.  The Chair contacts the IESG, IAB, Internet Society Board of
        Trustees, IETF Trust, and IETF LLC and requests a liaison from
        each.
END

*** End IASA2-related edits ***
*******************************

These comments relate to original text or are otherwise not important for the IASA2 changes.

I do wish we could avoid “IETF Trust Trustees”, but that ship has sunk sailed.

— Section 3.1 (and 4.6 and 5.6) —

Nit: The word “comprised” is correctly used as “the whole comprises its parts”, and is used correctly in Section 4.3.  It’s used in the document three times incorrectly (“the whole is comprised of its parts”, for which the correct word is “composed”).  Please change the three instances of “is comprised of” either to “is composed of” or “comprises” (I prefer the latter).

— Section 3.4 —

  For confirmed candidates of the IESG, the terms begin no later than
  when the currently sitting members' terms end on the last day of the
  meeting.  A term may begin or end no sooner than the first day of the
  meeting and no later than the last day of the meeting as determined

This seems like an editing error.  I would merge the two sentences:

NEW
  For the IESG, the term of the sitting member ends and the term of the
  confirmed candidate begins no sooner than the first day of the meeting
  and no later than the last day of the meeting as determined
END

  For candidates confirmed under the mid-term vacancy rules, the term
  begins as soon as possible after the confirmation.

I would say “as soon as practicable”.  It’s quite possible that it would be *possible* to begin a term, but there could be reasons to wait a bit.

— Section 3.5 —

  1.  When there is only one official NomCom, the body with the mid-
      term vacancy relegates the responsibility to fill the vacancy

While “relegates” *can* mean “delegates”, the general sense of “relegate” is negative ("We relegated it to the trash pile.").  Better to use “delegates”, or simply “gives”.  (Twice in this paragraph and once in Section 4.2.)

— Section 3.6 —

  The NomCom and confirming body members will be exposed to
  confidential information as a result of their deliberations, their
  interactions with those they consult, and from those who provide
  requested supporting information.

The list is not parallel (the third item doesn’t work).

NEW
  The NomCom and confirming body members will be exposed to
  confidential information as a result of their deliberations and
  their interactions with those they consult, and from those who
  provide requested supporting information.
END

  The NomCom
  may disclose a list of names of nominees who are willing to be
  considered for positions under review to the community

“under review to the community” reads funny.  I would move “to the community” to be after “list of names”.

— Section 3.7.3 —

  The confirming bodies conduct their review using all information

Their “reviews”, plural.

  and the confirming bodies' interpretation

The bodies’ “interpretations”, plural.

  the NomCom must select alternate candidates for the rejected
  candidates.

“alternative” candidates.

— Section 4.1 —

  The completion of the selection and organization process is due at
  least one month prior to the Third IETF.  This ensures the NomCom is
  fully operational and available for interviews and consultation
  during the Third IETF.

As selection is normally done prior to the *Second* IETF now, is it worth saying that (not requiring it; the requirement as stated is fine)?  Something like, “In practice, the selection process is generally completed prior to the Second IETF, so that the Second IETF can be used for organization.”  I think it’s especially important to say this because otherwise it seems like the old and new NomComs are only required to overlap by one month, and Section 4.2 says they’re meant to overlap for “approximately three months”.

— Section 4.2 —

  When the prior year's NomCom is filling a mid-term vacancy during the
  period of time that the terms overlap, the NomCom operate
  independently.

“NomComs”, plural.

— Section 4.6 —

  Any such appointment must be temporary and does not absolve the Chair
  of any or all responsibility for ensuring the NomCom completes its
  assigned duties in a timely fashion.

Then where does it say how to permanently replace a NomCom Chair who really does have to leave permanently (say, death or incapacity, unexpected family issues, or even just is no longer willing to do it)?

— Section 4.8 —
This section doesn’t say anything about liaison appointment from the ISOC BoT; it probably should.

— Section 4.10 —

  The prior year's Chair may select a designee from a pool composed of
  the voting volunteers of the prior year's committee and all prior
  Chairs if the Chair is unavailable.  If the prior year's Chair is
  unavailable or is unable or unwilling to make such a designation in a
  timely fashion, the Chair of the current year's committee may select
  a designee in consultation with the Internet Society President.

For clarity, “if the prior year’s Chair is unavailable,” because there are two Chairs under discussion.

Why is it that the prior year’s Chair can pick someone else on her own, but the current Chair has to consult with the ISOC President to do the same thing?

— Section 4.14 —

  Members of the IETF community must have attended at least three of
  the last five IETF meetings in order to volunteer.

I hesitate to say this, given other ongoing discussions, but “attended at least three of the last five IETF meetings in person in order to volunteer” has to be clear here, especially as we now have formal registration for remote participants.

  Volunteers must provide their full name, email address, and primary
  company or organization affiliation (if any) when volunteering.

Hm, number-agreement problem (plural volunteers and singular name, etc.), but it’s sticky to fix it and keep it gender-free.  We could go with the custom of using “their” as gender-free singular and say, “Each volunteer must provide their full name….”  Or we could make it all plural (which I think I like a tad better):

NEW
  Volunteers must provide their full names, email addresses, and
  primary company or organization affiliations (if any) when
  volunteering.
END

— Section 4.16 —

  The pool of volunteers must be enumerated or otherwise indicated
  according to the needs of the selection method to be used.

Maybe “otherwise annotated”?  “Indicated” doesn’t seem like the right word.

— Section 4.17 —

  the same affiliation, then the volunteer should notify the Chair who
  will determine the appropriate action.

Comma before “who”, please.

  During at least the one week challenge period, the Chair must contact

What does that mean?  Is it meant to mean “during the challenge period, which is a least one week”?  If so, just say “During the challenge period,” as the one week length has already been stated. If it means something else, what?

— Section 4.18 —

  The Chair works with the members of the committee to organize itself
  in preparation for completing its assigned duties.

I don’t think “itself” works here.  I’d say, “The Chair works with the NomCom members to organize the committee….”

— Section 5.15 —

  Rejected nominees, who consented to their nomination, and rejected
  candidates must be notified prior to announcing the confirmed
  candidates.

The comma before “who” shouldn’t be there.

— Section 6 —

  3.  The arbiter investigates the issue making every reasonable effort
      to understand both sides of the issue.

This is better with a comma before “making”.

— Section 7 —

  It applies to IESG and IAB Members, the NomCom appointed IETF Trust
  Trustees, and the NomCom appointed IETF LLC Directors.

“NomCom-appointed” should be hyphenated both times, and also twice in Section 7.1.

— Section 7.3 —
More number disagreement (plural subject and “a member”).

NEW
  The recall committee is created according to the same rules as is the
  NomCom, with the qualification that both the person being investigated
  and the parties requesting the recall must not be involved in the recall
  committee in any capacity.
END

— Section 7.7 —
It would be worth adding, for absolute clarity, “The Recall Committee does not itself fill the open position.”

[Ballot comment]
After clarification by Alissa, I am changing my position from "No Objection with COMMENTs" to "Abstain" as I am comfortable with neither the document nor the "important but limited" fix approach.

I will follow the majority of the IESG anyway and happy to move my position to "No record" if required.

-éric

Thank you all for the work put into this clear and well-written document. As I went recently through the process, I read the document with the eyes of someone going through the NomCom interview process as well as transition to an AD role. So, this is a review with bias.

== COMMENTS ==

-- Section 3.5 --

Having been through the transition myself, I wonder why the IESG paragraph is so complex when compared to the IAB one: let's have the IESG terms also overlap during the First meeting. No hard feeling though, just easier / clearer for incoming AD.

-- Section 3.6 --

Just wondering in which case(s) this would be desirable: "The NomCom may choose not to include some names in the disclosed list, at their discretion."

-- Section 5.6 --

What happens if it is impossible to get the 7 voting members for a candidate selection vote? Of course, the vote can be postponed but not further away than the milestones. Should there be a link with section 5.7 (voting member recall) ? or another 'last resort' process?


== NITS ==

-- Section 1. --

Please expand IASA (or add a reference) before its first use.

[Ballot comment]
NOTE:
My original position was DISCUSS - I'm changing it to NoObjection, but I'm still quite uncomfortable with this -- I view NoObjection as signalling that I'm comfortable with the document.
"The IESG is expected to ensure that the documents are of a sufficient quality for release as RFCs, that they describe their subject matter well, and that there are no outstanding engineering issues that should be addressed before publication. The degree of review will vary with the intended status and perceived importance of the documents." (RFC3710).

I view this document as very important, but as whole I don't think it is "of a sufficient quality for release as RFC" and that it "describe(s) their subject matter well" - there are some open questions / places where clarification would help. I fully understand the need to patch this to support IASA2 (and it's the right thing to do), and the reasoning behind not opening up the entire document for review and fixing all the bugs...
The paragraph which says "This revision addresses only the changes required for IASA 2.0;should the community agree on other changes, they will be addressed in future documents." addresses basically all of my concerns, but I'd be **much** happier (and would be comfortable voting "Yes") if it were moved from the Introduction into the Abstract or made more prominent in some other way.


--- ORIGINAL DISCUSS POSITION ---
Don't panic - these should be trivial DISCUSSes to address, either by fixing the text, or swatting me with a clue-by-four.
I'm apologize that some of these might be pedantic, but I think that this is an important document to get right and make as clear as possible.

D1: 4.17.  Announcement of Selection Results
"If a selected volunteer, upon reading the announcement with the list
  of selected volunteers, finds that two or more other volunteers have
  the same affiliation, then the volunteer should notify the Chair who
  will determine the appropriate action."
Why is this limited ("If a selected volunteer...")? What if someone else notices it? (as an example, the chair notices that they messed up during the previous step?)

D2: 6.  Dispute Resolution Process
" 4.  After consultation with the two principal parties to the issue, the arbiter decides on a resolution."
Can this be changed to "After consultation with the principal parties..."? Disputes get messy and I don't see what specifying "two" adds here.

D3: :7.6.  3/4 Majority
  "A 3/4 majority of the members who vote on the question is required  for a recall."
"3/4 majority of the members who vote", or "eligible voting members"? If only one person actually casts their vote does that equal 100%?
I'm perfectly fine if that is the intent, just wanted to make sure I'm reading it correctly. I personally feel that everyone should be expected to vote on this - I dislike the idea that people can abstain from voting because they don't want to get their hands dirty, and instead wait for one of their colleagues to stand up and make the hard decision. I also realize that this is already covered in the general confidentiality discussions, but I suspect that there is / will be more drama and intrigue around recalls - might it be worth reiterating that voting is confidential and / or should they be secret ballots? I really don't want anyone to feel uncomfortable voting to recall someone because they fear repercussions....

-- END OF ORIGINAL DISCUSS POSITION ---

Firstly, thank you for writing (updating? -bis'ing?)  this; it is an important document.
The below are suggestions to make the document even better / clearer, but they are just that - suggestions...


1: "3.1.  Completion Due
  The completion of the annual process is due within seven months.
  The completion of the annual process is due one month prior to the Friday of the week before the First IETF.  It is expected to begin at least eight months prior to the Friday of the week before the First IETF."
Much of this document feels like a contract (e.g tone, list of requirements, etc). Because of this I think it would be better to not have the same thing stated in multiple ways - it raises the possibility of fighting over which of the above is correct if there is a conflict between "clauses". I'd suggest dropping the first sentence - it is difficult to correlate with the rest, and doesn't really say due *from when*.
Note that this is just a suggestion....

2: Like Barry I wonder why "The NomCom may choose not to include some names in the disclosed list, at their discretion.", but I'm assuming that there is a good reason (and there is already an open question).

3: 3.7.4.  Confirmation
"The confirming body must make its decision within a reasonable time frame."
What's reasonable? 24 hours? 6 months? Can this either be firmed up (preferred), or, because it doesn't really *mean* anything as is, dropped?

4: 3.9.  Announcements
"As of the publication of this document, the current mechanism is an email message to both the "ietf" and the "ietf-announce" mailing lists."
s/ietf/ietf@ietf.org/ (and same for ietf-announce) ?

5: 4.3.  Structure
"The 10 voting volunteers are selected according to rules stated elsewhere in this document."
Can you add links / cross-references to things where you say "elsewhere in this document"? I know it's annoying, but there are many more readers than authors, so ...

6: "The prior year’s Chair is expected to review the actions and activities of the current Chair and to report any concerns or issues to the NomCom Chair immediately."
Can you either add "NomCom" to "current Chair" or remove it from "the NomCom Chair"? The fact that they differ implied that they are different people (and tripped me up).

7: 4.12.  Milestones
"There is a defined time period during which the selection process is due to be completed. "
Please insert link to where the time period is defined (I think S 3.1).

8: 4.16.  Selection Process
The selection method must produce an ordered list of volunteers.
Er, why? (genuinely interested, not snark :-)) -- I can see why the *input* must be ordered (so we can all verify the algorithm was run correctly), but why must the output be ordered? E.g A new algorithm could be used where everyone is put in a pool, and candidates deterministically ejected until only N remain. This would result in an unordered, but publicly verifiable pool.  I personally think that RFC3797 is awesome, but if you are allowing other methods I don't understand this limitation.


9: 4.17.  Announcement of Selection Results
What happens if a volunteers affiliation changes during the process? I'm fine leaving this undefined, but was wondering if it is "affiliation when entered" or "affiliation before announcement", or... ?

10: 5.15.  Confirming Candidates
"A nominee may not know they were a candidate."
I'll happily cop to this being a pet peeve, but could you please change this to "might not"? This sounds like an imperative...  and from now on, every time you are on a plane, and hear "although the bag on the oxygen mask may not inflate, oxygen is flowing to the mask" you can thank me :-P

11: S5.6 says "At all other times, a quorum is present if at least 75% of the NomCom members are participating." while S 7.6.  says "3/4 Majority"
Is there a reason for using percentage vs fractions? I'm assuming not, but it raises questions...


Thanks again for all the hard work,
W

[Ballot comment]

--- ORIGINAL DISCUSS POSITION ---
Don't panic - these should be trivial DISCUSSes to address, either by fixing the text, or swatting me with a clue-by-four.
I'm apologize that some of these might be pedantic, but I think that this is an important document to get right and make as clear as possible.

D1: 4.17.  Announcement of Selection Results
"If a selected volunteer, upon reading the announcement with the list
  of selected volunteers, finds that two or more other volunteers have
  the same affiliation, then the volunteer should notify the Chair who
  will determine the appropriate action."
Why is this limited ("If a selected volunteer...")? What if someone else notices it? (as an example, the chair notices that they messed up during the previous step?)

D2: 6.  Dispute Resolution Process
" 4.  After consultation with the two principal parties to the issue, the arbiter decides on a resolution."
Can this be changed to "After consultation with the principal parties..."? Disputes get messy and I don't see what specifying "two" adds here.

D3: :7.6.  3/4 Majority
  "A 3/4 majority of the members who vote on the question is required  for a recall."
"3/4 majority of the members who vote", or "eligible voting members"? If only one person actually casts their vote does that equal 100%?
I'm perfectly fine if that is the intent, just wanted to make sure I'm reading it correctly. I personally feel that everyone should be expected to vote on this - I dislike the idea that people can abstain from voting because they don't want to get their hands dirty, and instead wait for one of their colleagues to stand up and make the hard decision. I also realize that this is already covered in the general confidentiality discussions, but I suspect that there is / will be more drama and intrigue around recalls - might it be worth reiterating that voting is confidential and / or should they be secret ballots? I really don't want anyone to feel uncomfortable voting to recall someone because they fear repercussions....

-- END OF ORIGINAL DISCUSS POSITION ---

Firstly, thank you for writing (updating? -bis'ing?)  this; it is an important document.
The below are suggestions to make the document even better / clearer, but they are just that - suggestions...


1: "3.1.  Completion Due
  The completion of the annual process is due within seven months.
  The completion of the annual process is due one month prior to the Friday of the week before the First IETF.  It is expected to begin at least eight months prior to the Friday of the week before the First IETF."
Much of this document feels like a contract (e.g tone, list of requirements, etc). Because of this I think it would be better to not have the same thing stated in multiple ways - it raises the possibility of fighting over which of the above is correct if there is a conflict between "clauses". I'd suggest dropping the first sentence - it is difficult to correlate with the rest, and doesn't really say due *from when*.
Note that this is just a suggestion....

2: Like Barry I wonder why "The NomCom may choose not to include some names in the disclosed list, at their discretion.", but I'm assuming that there is a good reason (and there is already an open question).

3: 3.7.4.  Confirmation
"The confirming body must make its decision within a reasonable time frame."
What's reasonable? 24 hours? 6 months? Can this either be firmed up (preferred), or, because it doesn't really *mean* anything as is, dropped?

4: 3.9.  Announcements
"As of the publication of this document, the current mechanism is an email message to both the "ietf" and the "ietf-announce" mailing lists."
s/ietf/ietf@ietf.org/ (and same for ietf-announce) ?

5: 4.3.  Structure
"The 10 voting volunteers are selected according to rules stated elsewhere in this document."
Can you add links / cross-references to things where you say "elsewhere in this document"? I know it's annoying, but there are many more readers than authors, so ...

6: "The prior year’s Chair is expected to review the actions and activities of the current Chair and to report any concerns or issues to the NomCom Chair immediately."
Can you either add "NomCom" to "current Chair" or remove it from "the NomCom Chair"? The fact that they differ implied that they are different people (and tripped me up).

7: 4.12.  Milestones
"There is a defined time period during which the selection process is due to be completed. "
Please insert link to where the time period is defined (I think S 3.1).

8: 4.16.  Selection Process
The selection method must produce an ordered list of volunteers.
Er, why? (genuinely interested, not snark :-)) -- I can see why the *input* must be ordered (so we can all verify the algorithm was run correctly), but why must the output be ordered? E.g A new algorithm could be used where everyone is put in a pool, and candidates deterministically ejected until only N remain. This would result in an unordered, but publicly verifiable pool.  I personally think that RFC3797 is awesome, but if you are allowing other methods I don't understand this limitation.


9: 4.17.  Announcement of Selection Results
What happens if a volunteers affiliation changes during the process? I'm fine leaving this undefined, but was wondering if it is "affiliation when entered" or "affiliation before announcement", or... ?

10: 5.15.  Confirming Candidates
"A nominee may not know they were a candidate."
I'll happily cop to this being a pet peeve, but could you please change this to "might not"? This sounds like an imperative...  and from now on, every time you are on a plane, and hear "although the bag on the oxygen mask may not inflate, oxygen is flowing to the mask" you can thank me :-P

11: S5.6 says "At all other times, a quorum is present if at least 75% of the NomCom members are participating." while S 7.6.  says "3/4 Majority"
Is there a reason for using percentage vs fractions? I'm assuming not, but it raises questions...


Thanks again for all the hard work,
W

[Ballot discuss]
Don't panic - these should be trivial DISCUSSes to address, either by fixing the text, or swatting me with a clue-by-four.
I'm apologize that some of these might be pedantic, but I think that this is an important document to get right and make as clear as possible.

D1: 4.17.  Announcement of Selection Results
"If a selected volunteer, upon reading the announcement with the list
  of selected volunteers, finds that two or more other volunteers have
  the same affiliation, then the volunteer should notify the Chair who
  will determine the appropriate action."
Why is this limited ("If a selected volunteer...")? What if someone else notices it? (as an example, the chair notices that they messed up during the previous step?)

D2: 6.  Dispute Resolution Process
" 4.  After consultation with the two principal parties to the issue, the arbiter decides on a resolution."
Can this be changed to "After consultation with the principal parties..."? Disputes get messy and I don't see what specifying "two" adds here.

D3: :7.6.  3/4 Majority
  "A 3/4 majority of the members who vote on the question is required  for a recall."
"3/4 majority of the members who vote", or "eligible voting members"? If only one person actually casts their vote does that equal 100%?
I'm perfectly fine if that is the intent, just wanted to make sure I'm reading it correctly. I personally feel that everyone should be expected to vote on this - I dislike the idea that people can abstain from voting because they don't want to get their hands dirty, and instead wait for one of their colleagues to stand up and make the hard decision. I also realize that this is already covered in the general confidentiality discussions, but I suspect that there is / will be more drama and intrigue around recalls - might it be worth reiterating that voting is confidential and / or should they be secret ballots? I really don't want anyone to feel uncomfortable voting to recall someone because they fear repercussions....

[Ballot comment]
Firstly, thank you for writing (updating? -bis'ing?)  this; it is an important document.
The below are suggestions to make the document even better / clearer, but they are just that - suggestions...


1: "3.1.  Completion Due
  The completion of the annual process is due within seven months.
  The completion of the annual process is due one month prior to the Friday of the week before the First IETF.  It is expected to begin at least eight months prior to the Friday of the week before the First IETF."
Much of this document feels like a contract (e.g tone, list of requirements, etc). Because of this I think it would be better to not have the same thing stated in multiple ways - it raises the possibility of fighting over which of the above is correct if there is a conflict between "clauses". I'd suggest dropping the first sentence - it is difficult to correlate with the rest, and doesn't really say due *from when*.
Note that this is just a suggestion....

2: Like Barry I wonder why "The NomCom may choose not to include some names in the disclosed list, at their discretion.", but I'm assuming that there is a good reason (and there is already an open question).

3: 3.7.4.  Confirmation
"The confirming body must make its decision within a reasonable time frame."
What's reasonable? 24 hours? 6 months? Can this either be firmed up (preferred), or, because it doesn't really *mean* anything as is, dropped?

4: 3.9.  Announcements
"As of the publication of this document, the current mechanism is an email message to both the "ietf" and the "ietf-announce" mailing lists."
s/ietf/ietf@ietf.org/ (and same for ietf-announce) ?

5: 4.3.  Structure
"The 10 voting volunteers are selected according to rules stated elsewhere in this document."
Can you add links / cross-references to things where you say "elsewhere in this document"? I know it's annoying, but there are many more readers than authors, so ...

6: "The prior year’s Chair is expected to review the actions and activities of the current Chair and to report any concerns or issues to the NomCom Chair immediately."
Can you either add "NomCom" to "current Chair" or remove it from "the NomCom Chair"? The fact that they differ implied that they are different people (and tripped me up).

7: 4.12.  Milestones
"There is a defined time period during which the selection process is due to be completed. "
Please insert link to where the time period is defined (I think S 3.1).

8: 4.16.  Selection Process
The selection method must produce an ordered list of volunteers.
Er, why? (genuinely interested, not snark :-)) -- I can see why the *input* must be ordered (so we can all verify the algorithm was run correctly), but why must the output be ordered? E.g A new algorithm could be used where everyone is put in a pool, and candidates deterministically ejected until only N remain. This would result in an unordered, but publicly verifiable pool.  I personally think that RFC3797 is awesome, but if you are allowing other methods I don't understand this limitation.


9: 4.17.  Announcement of Selection Results
What happens if a volunteers affiliation changes during the process? I'm fine leaving this undefined, but was wondering if it is "affiliation when entered" or "affiliation before announcement", or... ?

10: 5.15.  Confirming Candidates
"A nominee may not know they were a candidate."
I'll happily cop to this being a pet peeve, but could you please change this to "might not"? This sounds like an imperative...  and from now on, every time you are on a plane, and hear "although the bag on the oxygen mask may not inflate, oxygen is flowing to the mask" you can thank me :-P

11: S5.6 says "At all other times, a quorum is present if at least 75% of the NomCom members are participating." while S 7.6.  says "3/4 Majority"
Is there a reason for using percentage vs fractions? I'm assuming not, but it raises questions...


Thanks again for all the hard work,
W

[Ballot comment]
Thank you all for the work put into this clear and well-written document. As I went recently through the process, I read the document with the eyes of someone going through the NomCom interview process as well as transition to an AD role. So, this is a review with bias.

== COMMENTS ==

-- Section 3.5 --

Having been through the transition myself, I wonder why the IESG paragraph is so complex when compared to the IAB one: let's have the IESG terms also overlap during the First meeting. No hard feeling though, just easier / clearer for incoming AD.

-- Section 3.6 --

Just wondering in which case(s) this would be desirable: "The NomCom may choose not to include some names in the disclosed list, at their discretion."

-- Section 5.6 --

What happens if it is impossible to get the 7 voting members for a candidate selection vote? Of course, the vote can be postponed but not further away than the milestones. Should there be a link with section 5.7 (voting member recall) ? or another 'last resort' process?


== NITS ==

-- Section 1. --

Please expand IASA (or add a reference) before its first use.

[Ballot discuss]
Thanks for the work on this!

I have three points I'd like to discuss, all of which should be easy:

— Section 3.8 —

  However, the following exception is permitted in the case where the
  candidate for an open position is currently a sitting member of the
  IAB.  It is consistent with these rules for the announcements of a
  resignation of a sitting member of the IAB and of the confirmed
  candidate for the mid-term vacancy created by that sitting member on
  the IAB to all occur at the same time as long as the actual sequence
  of events that occurred did so in the following order:

  1.  The NomCom completes the advice and consent process for the open
      position being filled by the candidate currently sitting on the
      IAB.

  2.  The newly confirmed candidate resigns from their current position
      on the IAB.

  3.  The IAB Chair (or the Managing Director, IETF Secretariat, if no
      Chair has been named or the vacancy was created via the departure
      of the IAB Chair) informs the NomCom of the mid-term vacancy.

  4.  The NomCom acts on the request to fill the mid-term vacancy.

Either I don’t understand what this is saying or I don’t understand how it’s possible.  Paraphrasing, the first paragraph says that it’s OK for the announcement of the sitting IAB member’s resignation to happen at the same time as the announcement of that member’s confirmed replacement.  That means that at the time of the resignation, the NomCom already had to have selected the replacement, given that selection to the confirming body, and had it confirmed.  Which means that step 4 had to have happened before step 2, or at least before step 3, no?

— Section 4.6 —

  Any such appointment must be temporary and does not absolve the Chair
  of any or all responsibility for ensuring the NomCom completes its
  assigned duties in a timely fashion.

Then where does it say how to permanently replace a NomCom Chair who really does have to leave permanently (say, death or incapacity, unexpected family issues, or even just is no longer willing to do it)?

— Section 4.10 —

  The prior year's Chair may select a designee from a pool composed of
  the voting volunteers of the prior year's committee and all prior
  Chairs if the Chair is unavailable.  If the prior year's Chair is
  unavailable or is unable or unwilling to make such a designation in a
  timely fashion, the Chair of the current year's committee may select
  a designee in consultation with the Internet Society President.

Why is it that the prior year’s Chair can pick someone else on her own, but the current Chair has to consult with the ISOC President to do the same thing?

[Ballot comment]
There are a lot of comments here, but they're basically all editorial.

General: While it’s not necessary, it would be helpful if the many places that say “elsewhere in this document” had internal section-number citations instead.

— Abstract —
The abstract says that it’s “based on RFC3777 and RFC7437”, but 3777 was obsoleted by 7437.  Does it really make sense to mention 3777 in the Abstract?  I think it isn’t, and suggest:

OLD
  This document
  is based on RFC3777 and RFC7437 and has been updated to reflect the
  changes introduced by IASA 2.0.
NEW
  This document
  is based on and replaces RFC7437, and has been updated to reflect
  the changes introduced by IASA 2.0.
END

— Introduction —
Here I think it’s worth mentioning 3777 as part of the history, but “updates” isn’t strong enough for clarity.  Perhaps:

OLD
  This document is a revision of [RFC7437] that updates it to be
  consistent with the IASA 2.0 changes.  RFC 7437 was based on
  [RFC3777] that consolidated and updated other RFCs that updated that
  document into a single specification.  The result is a complete
  specification of the process by which members of the Internet
  Architecture Board (IAB) and Internet Engineering Steering Group
  (IESG), some Trustees of the IETF Trust, and some Directors of the
  IETF Administration LLC (IETF LLC), are selected, confirmed, and
  recalled.
NEW
  This document is a revision of [RFC7437] that updates and replaces
  it, and is consistent with the IASA 2.0 changes.  RFC 7437 was based
  on [RFC3777] and its updates, and consolidated and updated the process
  into a single specification at that time.  This document is now the
  sole and complete specification of the process by which members of the
  Internet Architecture Board (IAB) and Internet Engineering Steering Group
  (IESG), some Trustees of the IETF Trust, and some Directors of the
  IETF Administration LLC (IETF LLC), are selected, confirmed, and
  recalled.
END

Does that work?

I do wish we could avoid “IETF Trust Trustees”, but that ship has sunk sailed.

We use “IETF LLC Director” (3 times) and “IETF LLC Board Director” (6 times) interchangeably; we should pick one and use it consistently.

— Section 3.1 (and 4.6 and 5.6) —

Nit: The word “comprised” is correctly used as “the whole comprises its parts”, and is used correctly in Section 4.3.  It’s used in the document three times incorrectly (“the whole is comprised of its parts”, for which the correct word is “composed”).  Please change the three instances of “is comprised of” either to “is composed of” or “comprises” (I prefer the latter).

— Section 3.2 —

  The principal functions of the NomCom are to review each open IESG,
  IAB, IETF Trust, and IETF LLC Board position and to nominate either
  its incumbent or a superior candidate.

As “nominee” is defined as someone being considered by the NomCom, and “candidate” is the one selected, this should say “and to select”, not “and to nominate”.

Similarly for “candidate that is nominated” in the fourth paragraph and “to which he or she is nominated” in the last paragraph. (Note that “nominated” *is* correct in the fifth paragraph.)

— Section 3.3 —

  or if a member or Director unexpectedly resigns.

“if a member, a Director, or a Trustee” (and similarly in the middle of Section 3.4)

— Section 3.4 —

  Confirmed IETF LLC Board Director candidates are expected to serve at
  least a three-year term, except if a nominating or selection body
  decides to use a shorter term to allow for initial staggered
  appointments.

Given that the initial staggered appointments have already been made, the “except” part seems overtaken by events.  Does it really make sense to publish that now, especially as the reference in the following sentence covers that situation?  (And similarly for the next paragraph about Trustees.)

For all three paragraphs, “a three year term” doesn’t match “candidates” in number.  I suggest making them both singular, so “A confirmed IESG or IAB candidate is expected to serve at least a two-year term.”  And similarly for the other two.  Alternatively, we could change “a two-year term” to “two-year terms”, making them both plural.

In both the Director and Trustee paragraphs, “additional guidance on terms length” should say “term length”.

  The term of a confirmed candidate selected according to the mid-term
  vacancy rules may be less than a full term (two years for IESG and
  IAB, three years for the IETF Trust and IETF LLC), as stated
  elsewhere in this document.

Why repeat the term length here?  I would remove the parenthesized bit.

  For confirmed candidates of the IESG, the terms begin no later than
  when the currently sitting members' terms end on the last day of the
  meeting.  A term may begin or end no sooner than the first day of the
  meeting and no later than the last day of the meeting as determined

This seems like an editing error.  I would merge the two sentences:

NEW
  For the IESG, the term of the sitting member ends and the term of the
  confirmed candidate begins no sooner than the first day of the meeting
  and no later than the last day of the meeting as determined
END

  For candidates confirmed under the mid-term vacancy rules, the term
  begins as soon as possible after the confirmation.

I would say “as soon as practicable”.  It’s quite possible that it would be *possible* to begin a term, but there could be reasons to wait a bit.

— Section 3.5 —

  1.  When there is only one official NomCom, the body with the mid-
      term vacancy relegates the responsibility to fill the vacancy

While “relegates” *can* mean “delegates”, the general sense of “relegate” is negative ("We relegated it to the trash pile.").  Better to use “delegates”, or simply “gives”.  (Twice in this paragraph and once in Section 4.2.)

  4.  The term of the confirmed candidate will be either:

      A.  the remainder of the term of the open position if that
          remainder is not less than one year or

      B.  the remainder of the term of the open position plus the next
          two-year term if that remainder is less than one year.

This is clearly written for the IAB and IESG, and hasn’t been changed to account for Directors and Trustees.

— Section 3.6 —

  The NomCom and confirming body members will be exposed to
  confidential information as a result of their deliberations, their
  interactions with those they consult, and from those who provide
  requested supporting information.

The list is not parallel (the third item doesn’t work).

NEW
  The NomCom and confirming body members will be exposed to
  confidential information as a result of their deliberations and
  their interactions with those they consult, and from those who
  provide requested supporting information.
END

  The NomCom
  may disclose a list of names of nominees who are willing to be
  considered for positions under review to the community

“under review to the community” reads funny.  I would move “to the community” to be after “list of names”.

— Section 3.7.3 —

  The sitting IESG members review the IETF Trust Trustee Candidates.

There should be only one (as with the Board candidate in the next paragraph), and it shouldn’t be capitalized.

  The confirming bodies conduct their review using all information

Their “reviews”, plural.

  and the confirming bodies' interpretation

The bodies’ “interpretations”, plural.

  the NomCom must select alternate candidates for the rejected
  candidates.

“alternative” candidates.

— Section 4.1 —

  The completion of the selection and organization process is due at
  least one month prior to the Third IETF.  This ensures the NomCom is
  fully operational and available for interviews and consultation
  during the Third IETF.

As selection is normally done prior to the *Second* IETF now, is it worth saying that (not requiring it; the requirement as stated is fine)?  Something like, “In practice, the selection process is generally completed prior to the Second IETF, so that the Second IETF can be used for organization.”  I think it’s especially important to say this because otherwise it seems like the old and new NomComs are only required to overlap by one month, and Section 4.2 says they’re meant to overlap for “approximately three months”.

— Section 4.2 —

  When the prior year's NomCom is filling a mid-term vacancy during the
  period of time that the terms overlap, the NomCom operate
  independently.

“NomComs”, plural.

— Section 4.8 —
This section doesn’t say anything about liaison appointment from the ISOC BoT; it probably should.

— Section 4.10 —

  The prior year's Chair may select a designee from a pool composed of
  the voting volunteers of the prior year's committee and all prior
  Chairs if the Chair is unavailable.

For clarity, “if the prior year’s Chair is unavailable,” because there are two Chairs under discussion.

— Section 4.14 —

  Members of the IETF community must have attended at least three of
  the last five IETF meetings in order to volunteer.

I hesitate to say this, given other ongoing discussions, but “attended at least three of the last five IETF meetings in person in order to volunteer” has to be clear here, especially as we now have formal registration for remote participants.

  Volunteers must provide their full name, email address, and primary
  company or organization affiliation (if any) when volunteering.

Hm, number-agreement problem (plural volunteers and singular name, etc.), but it’s sticky to fix it and keep it gender-free.  We could go with the custom of using “their” as gender-free singular and say, “Each volunteer must provide their full name….”  Or we could make it all plural (which I think I like a tad better):

NEW
  Volunteers must provide their full names, email addresses, and
  primary company or organization affiliations (if any) when
  volunteering.
END

— Section 4.16 —

  The pool of volunteers must be enumerated or otherwise indicated
  according to the needs of the selection method to be used.

Maybe “otherwise annotated”?  “Indicated” doesn’t seem like the right word.

— Section 4.17 —

  the same affiliation, then the volunteer should notify the Chair who
  will determine the appropriate action.

Comma before “who”, please.

  During at least the one week challenge period, the Chair must contact

What does that mean?  Is it meant to mean “during the challenge period, which is a least one week”?  If so, just say “During the challenge period,” as the one week length has already been stated. If it means something else, what?

— Section 4.18 —

  The Chair works with the members of the committee to organize itself
  in preparation for completing its assigned duties.

I don’t think “itself” works here.  I’d say, “The Chair works with the NomCom members to organize the committee….”

— Section 5.15 —

  Rejected nominees, who consented to their nomination, and rejected
  candidates must be notified prior to announcing the confirmed
  candidates.

The comma before “who” shouldn’t be there.

— Section 6 —

  3.  The arbiter investigates the issue making every reasonable effort
      to understand both sides of the issue.

This is better with a comma before “making”.

— Section 7 —

  It applies to IESG and IAB Members, the NomCom appointed IETF Trust
  Trustees, and the NomCom appointed IETF LLC Directors.

“NomCom-appointed” should be hyphenated both times, and also twice in Section 7.1.

— Sections 7.1.1 and 7.1.2 —
The way these are written makes it sound as if a Recall Committee Chair is appointed only for an Ombudsteam-initiated recall and not in the case of a community petition.  Here’s what I suggest: As Section 7.1 already says that recalls initiated by the Ombudsteam follow 7776, there’s no need to say it again in 7.1.2.  So how about this?:

OLD
  The Ombudsteam process allows the Ombudsteam to form a recall
  petition on its own without requiring 20 signatories from the
  community.  As defined in [RFC7776], the petition and its signatories
  (the Ombudsteam) shall be announced to the IETF community, and a
  Recall Committee Chair shall be appointed to complete the Recall
  Committee process.  It is expected that the Recall Committee will
  receive a briefing from the Ombudsteam explaining why recall is
  considered an appropriate remedy.
NEW
  The Ombudsteam process allows the Ombudsteam to form a recall
  petition on its own without requiring 20 signatories from the
  community.  The petition and its signatories (the Ombudsteam)
  shall be announced to the IETF community, as with a community
  petition, and it is expected that the Recall Committee (see
  below) will receive a briefing from the Ombudsteam explaining
  why recall is considered an appropriate remedy.
END

Then we let 7.2 et seq explain the common parts of the recall process, including appointment of the Recall Committee Chair.

— Section 7.3 —
More number disagreement (plural subject and “a member”).

NEW
  The recall committee is created according to the same rules as is the
  NomCom, with the qualification that both the person being investigated
  and the parties requesting the recall must not be involved in the recall
  committee in any capacity.
END

— Section 7.7 —
It would be worth adding, for absolute clarity, “The Recall Committee does not itself fill the open position.”

— Appendix C —

  4.  There are no term limits explicitly because the issue of
      continuity versus turnover should be evaluated each year
      according to the expectations of the IETF community, as it is
      understood by each NomCom.

Make it, “There are no term limits for the IAB and IESG explicitly….”  There are now term limits for Directors and Trustees.

— Appendix D —

OLD
  3.  The Chair contacts the IESG, IAB, and Internet Society Board of
        Trustees and requests a liaison.
NEW
  3.  The Chair contacts the IESG, IAB, Internet Society Board of
        Trustees, IETF Trust, and IETF LLC and requests a liaison from
        each.
END

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

The IANA Functions Operator has reviewed draft-ietf-iasa2-rfc7437bis-07, 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 2019-06-21):

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC: iasa20@ietf.org, alissa@cooperw.in, iasa2-chairs@ietf.org, Jon Peterson , draft-ietf-iasa2-rfc7437bis@ietf.org, jon.peterson@team.neustar
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (IAB, IESG, IETF Trust and IETF LLC Selection, Confirmation, and Recall Process: Operation of the IETF Nominating and Recall Committees) to Best Current Practice


The IESG has received a request from the IETF Administrative Support Activity
2 WG (iasa2) to consider the following document: - 'IAB, IESG, IETF Trust and
IETF LLC Selection, Confirmation, and Recall
  Process: Operation of the IETF Nominating and Recall Committees'
  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
ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2019-06-21. 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 process by which the members of the IAB and IESG, some Trustees
  of the IETF Trust, and some Directors of the IETF LLC are selected,
  confirmed, and recalled is specified in this document.  This document
  is based on RFC3777 and RFC7437 and has been updated to reflect the
  changes introduced by IASA 2.0.

  This document obsoletes RFC7437 and RFC8318.




The file can be obtained via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-iasa2-rfc7437bis/

IESG discussion can be tracked via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-iasa2-rfc7437bis/ballot/


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

1. Summary

draft-ietf-iasa2-rfc7437bis defines the selection, confirmation, and recall process for IETF NomCom appointments. As component of the IASA2 process, changes to this process are required for three main reasons: to support NomCom appointment of IETF LLC Board members in place of the prior IAOC appointment process; to replace previous guidance about selecting IETF Trust members from the IAOC with a new, independent process; and to reflect the renaming of the previous IETF Executive Director position to the Managing Director of the IETF Secretariat.

As such, this document obsoletes RFC7437. It also obsoletes RFC8318, which gave guidance for NomCom process surrounding the now-defunct IAOC.

2. Review and Consensus

For the most part, this document steers close to RFC7437, introducing no changes except where necessary to reflect shifts in the IETF administrative process resulting from the IASA2 restructuring. It has had sufficient comment in the working group, including multiple reviews with resulting revisions. The WG supports the advancement of this document as a necessary part of the IASA2 transition.

3. Intellectual Property

This document is not a protocol specification and it contains no technical solutions that might require a disclosure.

4. Other Points

RFC3710 is listed as a normative reference (and thus a downref); this probably could be moved to an Informational reference. Alternatively, we might just remove the reference to RFC3710 entirely from this document, as it was in RFC7437 in the first place to refer to the old Executive Director function.

A few miscellaneous non-blocking notes:

The guidance regarding IAB mid-term vacancies in 3.8 is a little unclear: what exactly is the difference between steps 3 and 4? If there is a difference, should 4 come before 3?

In Appendix C, tradition 4 mentions that there are no term limits - that isn't true of LLC Directors per struct 4.10.

Also, nits:

Last paragraph of Intro - this does not so much "update" IAOC selection, it abolishes it.

Nit in 3.4 "Section 2. of" should drop the period, and also the link there points to the wrong place.

Nit in 4.2 last paragraph "the Nomcom operate independently" should be "Nomcoms"?

1. Summary

draft-ietf-iasa2-rfc7437bis defines the selection, confirmation, and recall process for IETF NomCom appointments. As component of the IASA2 process, changes to this process are required for three main reasons: to support NomCom appointment of IETF LLC Board members in place of the prior IAOC appointment process; to replace previous guidance about selecting IETF Trust members from the IAOC with a new, independent process; and to reflect the renaming of the previous IETF Executive Director position to the Managing Director of the IETF Secretariat.

As such, this document obsoletes RFC7437. It also obsoletes RFC8318, which gave guidance for NomCom process surrounding the now-defunct IAOC.

2. Review and Consensus

For the most part, this document steers close to RFC7437, introducing no changes except where necessary to reflect shifts in the IETF administrative process resulting from the IASA2 restructuring. It has had sufficient comment in the working group, including multiple reviews with resulting revisions. The WG supports the advancement of this document as a necessary part of the IASA2 transition.

3. Intellectual Property

This document is not a protocol specification and it contains no technical solutions that might require a disclosure.

4. Other Points

RFC3710 is listed as a normative reference (and thus a downref); this probably could be moved to an Informational reference. Alternatively, we might just remove the reference to RFC3710 entirely from this document, as it was in RFC7437 in the first place to refer to the old Executive Director function.

A few miscellaneous non-blocking notes:

The guidance regarding IAB mid-term vacancies in 3.8 is a little unclear: what exactly is the difference between steps 3 and 4? If there is a difference, should 4 come before 3?

In Appendix C, tradition 4 mentions that there are no term limits - that isn't true of LLC Directors per struct 4.10.

Also, nits:

Last paragraph of Intro - this does not so much "update" IAOC selection, it abolishes it.

Nit in 3.4 "Section 2. of" should drop the period, and also the link there points to the wrong place.

Nit in 4.2 last paragraph "the Nomcom operate independently" should be "Nomcoms"?