Network Working Group S. Dawkins, Ed. Internet-Draft Huawei (USA) Updates: 3777 (if approved) February 20, 2009 Intended status: BCP Expires: August 24, 2009 Nominating Committee Process: Open Disclosure of Willing Candidates draft-dawkins-nomcom-openlist-00 Status of this Memo This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF in full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet- Drafts. Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt. The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html. This Internet-Draft will expire on August 24, 2009. Copyright Notice Copyright (c) 2009 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the document authors. All rights reserved. This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document. Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect to this document. Abstract This document updates RFC 3777, Section 3, Bullet 6 to allow a Dawkins Expires August 24, 2009 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft NomCom Issues February 2009 Nominating and Recall Commitee to disclose the list of volunteers who are willing to serve in positions the NomCom is responsible for filling. Table of Contents 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2. Background of this document . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 3. Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 4. Updated text from RFC 3777 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 7. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Dawkins Expires August 24, 2009 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft NomCom Issues February 2009 1. Introduction The Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG), the Internet Architecture Board (IAB), and at-large IETF representatives to the IETF Administrative Oversight Committee (IAOC) are selected by a "Nominating and Recall Committee" (universally abbreviated as "NomCom"). [RFC3777] defines how the NomCom is selected, and the processes it follows as it selects candidates for these positions. The NomCom is responsible for filling positions across the breadth of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF). The NomCom needs relevant information about candidates being considered for these positions, but current [RFC3777] requirements for confidentiality limit the ability of the NomCom to solicit that information. The process change described in this document allows the NomCom to openly solicit information about willing candidates. 2. Background of this document [RFC3777] is the latest in a series of revisions to the NomCom process. [RFC3777] describes the confidental nature of NomCom deliberations in section 3, "General", bullet 6, which states: All deliberations and supporting information that relates to specific nominees, candidates, and confirmed candidates are confidential. The nominating committee 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. All members and all other participants are expected to handle this information in a manner consistent with its sensitivity. It is consistent with this rule for current nominating committee members who have served on prior nominating committees to advise the current committee on deliberations and results of the prior committee, as necessary and appropriate. Since at least 1996, most NomComs have sent out a "short list" of candidates under consideration to a variety of audiences. The target audiences differ from year to year, but have included members of specific leadership bodies, working group chairs in a specific area (for IESG positions), and all working group chairs (for IAB and IAOC positions). Dawkins Expires August 24, 2009 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft NomCom Issues February 2009 This practice is probably unavoidable, but it is periodically challenged because it's not explicitly allowed as an exception to the blanket requirement for confidentiality. We also note that this practice penalizes IETF participants who aren't members of one of the audiences being surveyed - they have no way of knowing who is being considered, other than the incumbent(s), and have little incentive to provide feedback on individuals who might not even be candidates. In an attempt to maintain the required level of confidentiality, past NomComs have also included "ringers" on the short list - candidates who have notified NomCom that they are NOT willing to serve. Since anyone who sees the short list does not know who the ringers are, consciencious IETF participants also provide feedback on candidates who have already declined. This is a waste of precious IETF- participant cycles. The NomCom should be allowed to solicit needed feedback from the community on all candidates who are willing to serve. The community should not waste time providing feedback on candidates who are not willing to serve. 3. Discussion We take it as given that current NomComs members will not likely have personal experience with all candidates for positions under review. We assume that asking the larger community for feedback about these candidates is preferable to NomCom members without personal experience simply deferring to the members of the NomCom who DO have personal experience with specific candidates. If this assumption holds, the only question is how best to ask the community for feedback. We considered three possibilities: 1. Asking for feedback on all candidates, whether they are willing to serve or not. 2. Asking for feedback on all candidates who are willing to serve. 3. Asking for feedback on the candidates that NomCom is seriously considering (the "short list"). Asking for feedback on candidates who are not willing to serve is a waste of precious IETF-participant cycles, and may make it less likely that NomCom would receive feedback on some candidates who are willing to serve. Dawkins Expires August 24, 2009 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft NomCom Issues February 2009 Asking for feedback on all candidates who are willing to serve allows the community to point out specific strengths and weaknesses of all candidates, and this feedback should be useful to NomCom in deciding which candidates to seriously consider. It also ensures that NomCom has feedback on candidates who may not appear on the short list initially, in the event that a strong candidate is suddenly unwilling or unable to serve. We also note that the list of willing candidates would include incumbents who are willing to serve an additional term. 4. Updated text from RFC 3777 At the end of the three paragraphs in [RFC3777], section 3, "General", bullet 6, which are currently: All deliberations and supporting information that relates to specific nominees, candidates, and confirmed candidates are confidential. The nominating committee 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. All members and all other participants are expected to handle this information in a manner consistent with its sensitivity. It is consistent with this rule for current nominating committee members who have served on prior nominating committees to advise the current committee on deliberations and results of the prior committee, as necessary and appropriate. add a fourth paragraph, with the following text: The list of candidates willing to serve in positions under review in the current NomCom cycle is not confidential. The NomCom will publish the list of names of all willing candidates to the community, in order to obtain feedback from the community on these candidates. The list of candidates published should not contain candidates who have not indicated a willingness to serve in the position(s) under review. 5. Security Considerations This specification describes issues with the current IETF Nominating Committee process ([RFC3777]) and proposes an update to allow the Dawkins Expires August 24, 2009 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft NomCom Issues February 2009 NomCom to solicit feedback on willing candidates from the entire community. No security considerations apply. 6. IANA Considerations No IANA actions are requested in this specification. 7. Normative References [RFC3777] Galvin, J., "IAB and IESG Selection, Confirmation, and Recall Process: Operation of the Nominating and Recall Committees", BCP 10, RFC 3777, June 2004. Author's Address Spencer Dawkins (editor) Huawei Technologies (USA) Phone: +1 214 755 3870 Email: spencer@wonderhamster.org Dawkins Expires August 24, 2009 [Page 6]
