Network Working Group S. Dawkins, Ed. Internet-Draft Huawei (USA) Updates: 3777 (if approved) February 26, 2009 Intended status: BCP Expires: August 30, 2009 Nominating Committee Process: Open Disclosure of Willing Candidates draft-dawkins-nomcom-openlist-01 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 30, 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 in effect on the date of publication of this document (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info). 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 Nominating and Recall Commitee to disclose the list of volunteers who Dawkins Expires August 30, 2009 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft NomCom Issues February 2009 are willing to serve in positions the NomCom is responsible for filling. Table of Contents 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2. Current Rules on Candidate Confidentiality . . . . . . . . . . 3 3. Problems with Existing Rules . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 4. Asking the Entire Community for Feedback . . . . . . . . . . . 4 5. Publishing an Accurate Candidate List . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 6. Concerns About Open Candidate Lists . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 7. Updated text from RFC 3777 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 9. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 10. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 11. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Dawkins Expires August 30, 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. Current Rules on Candidate Confidentiality [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. 3. Problems with Existing Rules There are two problems with existing practice - candidate lists aren't as confidential as [RFC3777] would lead the reader to believe, but they aren't visible to the entire IETF community, either. Dawkins Expires August 30, 2009 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft NomCom Issues February 2009 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). "All working group chairs" includes multiple hundreds of recipients. This practice is unavoidable, because most NomCom members will not have personal experience with most candidates for most positions, but it is periodically challenged because it's not explicitly allowed as an exception to the blanket requirement for confidentiality. 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, and Joel Halpern (2008-2009 NomCom Chair) reports that "the ringer pool leaks like a sieve" - it's also ineffective. We also note that the practice of publishing a "short list" penalizes IETF participants who aren't members of one of the audiences being surveyed - they have no way of knowing who is being considered, except for incumbent(s), and have little incentive to provide feedback to NomCom on individuals who might not even be candidates. 4. Asking the Entire Community for Feedback We take it as given that for today's NomComs, members will not likely have personal experience with all candidates for all 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. We assume that asking for feedback from the entire community is preferable to asking for feedback from specific segments of the community. 5. Publishing an Accurate Candidate List In proposing that an accurate candidate list be published as part of Dawkins Expires August 30, 2009 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft NomCom Issues February 2009 NomCom's request for feedback from the community, 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. 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 allows NomCom to receive feedback on candidates who might not appear on a "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. 6. Concerns About Open Candidate Lists This section acknowledges possible concerns about publishing open candidate lists in previous discussions. It is possible that candidates who are willing to be considered if the candidate list is not published, would not be willing to be considered if the candidate list is published. This reluctance might be the result of personal pride, or the result of the fear of retribution, for a candidate being considered as a replacement for the candidate's managing Area Director (this concern is usually raised in an IESG context). Spencer's personal opinion is that if retribution for willingness to be considered for IETF leadership positions is a serious concern, we have bigger problems than candidate list confidentiality, and Spencer notes that it's called the "Nominating AND RECALL Committee" for a reason. We note that (for example) the Internet Architecture Board publishes the candidate list for their representative to the Internet Society Board of Trustees, without apparent ill effects. Dawkins Expires August 30, 2009 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft NomCom Issues February 2009 It is possible that publishing the candidate list publicly would lead to "lobbying", public statements supporting candidates on the IETF mailing list, etc. Rather than trying to prohibit specific "undesirable" behaviors, we trust that NomCom would focus on factual feedback, rather than on statements of support, in its deliberations. We note that candidates know they are under consideration and can "lobby" today, by telling people they are candidates and asking them to provide feedback to NomCom. Several candidates (both incumbents and non-incumbents) have posted statements of candidacy to the IETF Discussion mailing list, for example. 7. 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 the following paragraphs: 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. Dawkins Expires August 30, 2009 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft NomCom Issues February 2009 The published list is intended to be published as a complete list, but the NomCom may publish an updated list if the NomCom identifies errors/omissions in a previously-published version of the public list, or if the NomCom finds it necessary to call for additional candidates, and these candidates indicate a willingness to serve in time to be considered by the NomCom. 8. Security Considerations This specification describes issues with the current IETF Nominating Committee process ([RFC3777]) and proposes an update to allow the NomCom to solicit feedback on willing candidates from the entire community. No security considerations apply. 9. IANA Considerations No IANA actions are requested in this specification. 10. Acknowledgements The editor thanks the following folks who have provided useful observations and guidance on previous versions of this draft: Brian Carpenter, Leslie Daigle, Joel Halpern, Danny McPherson. 11. 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 30, 2009 [Page 7]
