Network Working Group S. Dawkins, Ed.
Internet-Draft Huawei (USA)
Updates: 3777 (if approved) July 28, 2009
Intended status: BCP
Expires: January 29, 2010
Nominating Committee Process: Open Disclosure of Willing Nominees
draft-dawkins-nomcom-openlist-05
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 January 29, 2010.
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 nominees who
Dawkins Expires January 29, 2010 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft NomCom Issues July 2009
are willing to be considered to serve in positions the committee is
responsible for filling.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Current Rules on Confidentiality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Problems with Existing Rules . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
4. Asking the Entire Community for Feedback . . . . . . . . . . . 4
5. Publishing a Nominee List . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
6. Updated text from RFC 3777 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
8. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
9. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
10. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Appendix A. Concerns About Open Nominee Lists . . . . . . . . . . 7
Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Dawkins Expires January 29, 2010 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft NomCom Issues July 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 nominees 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 nominees who are willing to be considered.
2. Current Rules on Confidentiality
[RFC3777] is the latest in a series of revisions to the NomCom
process, and it describes the confidential 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 - nominee lists aren't
as confidential as [RFC3777] would lead the reader to believe, but
they aren't visible to the entire IETF community, either.
Since at least 1996, most NomComs have sent out a "short list" of
Dawkins Expires January 29, 2010 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft NomCom Issues July 2009
nominees 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), all working group chairs (for IAB and IAOC
positions), and all document authors. The combined target audience
for all short lists includes multiple hundreds of recipients - recent
NomComs have sent out about 1500 requests for short list feedback.
This practice is unavoidable, because most NomCom members will not
have personal experience with most nominees 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" (as "padding") on the short list
- nominees who are NOT under active consideration for a specific
position. Since anyone who sees the short list does not know who the
ringers are, consciencious IETF participants also provide feedback on
nominees who have already declined. This is a waste of precious
IETF-participant cycles, and there are widespread reports that strict
confidentiality about which candidates are "real", and which are
included as "padding", is not successfully maintained in practice.
Even if confidentiality about padding is maintained, the community is
aware that some nominees on the short list aren't under active
consideration. In some cases, people guess incorrectly that an
actual nominee is part of the padding, and don't provide needed
feedback to NomCom about a nominee who is actively being considered.
We also note that the practice of publishing a "short list" penalizes
IETF participants who aren't members of one of the target 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 nominees.
4. Asking the Entire Community for Feedback
NomComs are not required to ask for community input at all, but at
the current IETF scale, many NomComs DO request community input,
because members do not have personal experience with all nominees for
all positions under review.
We assume that asking the larger community for feedback about these
nominees is preferable to NomCom members without personal experience
simply deferring to the members of the NomCom who DO have personal
experience with specific nominees.
Dawkins Expires January 29, 2010 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft NomCom Issues July 2009
We assume that asking for feedback from the entire community is
preferable to asking for feedback from large segments of the
community, while keeping the rest of the community "in the dark".
5. Publishing a Nominee List
In proposing that a nominee list be published as part of NomCom's
request for feedback from the community, we considered three
possibilities:
1. Asking for feedback on all nominees, whether they are willing to
be considered or not.
2. Asking for feedback on all nominees who are willing to be
considered.
3. Asking for feedback on the nominees that NomCom is seriously
considering (the "short list").
Asking for feedback on nominees who are not willing to be considered
is a waste of precious IETF-participant cycles, and may make it less
likely that NomCom would receive feedback on some nominees who ARE
willing to be considered.
Asking for feedback on all nominees who are willing to be considered
allows the community to point out specific strengths and weaknesses
of all willing nominees, and this feedback should be useful to NomCom
in deciding which nominees to seriously consider. It also allows
NomCom to receive feedback on nominees who might not appear on a
"short list" initially, in the event that a strong nominee is
suddenly unwilling or unable to serve.
We also note that the list of willing nominees will include
incumbents who are willing to be considered for an additional term.
6. 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
Dawkins Expires January 29, 2010 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft NomCom Issues July 2009
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 nominees willing to be considered for positions under
review in the current NomCom cycle is not confidential. The
NomCom may publish a list of names of nominees who are willing to
be considered for positions under review to the community, in
order to obtain feedback from the community on these nominees.
The list of nominees published for a specific position should
contain only the names of nominees who are willing to be
considered for the position under review.
The NomCom may choose not to include some names in the public
list, if this is the right thing to do, in NomCom's opinion.
The NomCom may publish an updated list if the NomCom considers
this necessary. For example, the NomCom might 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 nominees, and these nominees
indicate a willingness to be considered before NomCom has
completed its deliberations.
Nominees may choose to ask people to provide feedback to NomCom,
but should not encourage any public statements of support.
NomComs should consider nominee-encouraged lobbying and
campaigning to be unacceptable behavior,
IETF community members are encouraged to provide feedback on
nominees to NomCom, but should not post statements of support/
non-support for nominees in any public forum.
7. 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 from the entire community on nominees
Dawkins Expires January 29, 2010 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft NomCom Issues July 2009
under consideration. No security considerations apply.
8. IANA Considerations
No IANA actions are requested in this specification.
9. Acknowledgements
The editor thanks the following folks who have provided useful
observations and guidance on previous versions of this draft: Fred
Baker, Ross Callon, Brian Carpenter, Leslie Daigle, Lars Eggert,
Robert Elz, Joel Halpern, Bernie Hoeneisen, John Klensin, Barry
Leiba, Danny McPherson, S. Moonesamy, and Thomas Narten.
The editor also thanks IETF plenary meeting participants who have
provided useful feedback on previous versions of this draft.
10. 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.
Appendix A. Concerns About Open Nominee Lists
This section acknowledges possible concerns about publishing open
nominee lists in previous discussions. Thanks to Leslie Daigle for
providing this set to the document editor.
One concern is that nominees who are willing to be considered if the
nominee list is not published, would not be willing to be considered
if the nominee list is published. This reluctance might be cultural,
the result of personal pride, or the result of the fear of
retribution, for a nominee being considered as a replacement for the
nominee's managing Area Director (this concern is usually raised in
an IESG context).
Another concern is that publishing the nominee list publicly would
lead to "lobbying", public statements supporting nominees on the IETF
mailing list, etc.
Dawkins Expires January 29, 2010 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft NomCom Issues July 2009
Author's Address
Spencer Dawkins (editor)
Huawei Technologies (USA)
Phone: +1 214 755 3870
Email: spencer@wonderhamster.org
Dawkins Expires January 29, 2010 [Page 8]
