Network Working Group J. Klensin Internet-Draft July 9, 2005 Expires: January 10, 2006 Terms of Appointments for Nomcom-selected IETF Leadership Positions draft-klensin-nomcom-term-00.txt Status of this Memo By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of 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 10, 2006. Copyright Notice Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2005). Abstract A consensus is emerging in the IETF that very long tenure in leadership roles is not in the best interests of the community. While, in theory, that advice could simply be given to the Nomcom, there is reason to believe that a different model for consideration of renewal or replacement for members of the leadership would be more efficient for the Nomcom and would impose less hardship on incumbents and the community. This document outlines that alternate method. Klensin Expires January 10, 2006 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Nomcom and Terms of Office July 2005 Table of Contents 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1.1 Mailing List . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2. The Review and Clean Nomination Model . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2.1 Phase 1: Review of Incumbents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 2.2 Phase 2: Nomination and Selection of New Candidates . . . 5 2.3 Revised schedule . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 3. Open Questions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 4. Internationalization Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 6. Security considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 7. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 8.1 Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 8.2 Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . 7 Klensin Expires January 10, 2006 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft Nomcom and Terms of Office July 2005 1. Introduction A consensus is emerging in the IETF that very long tenure in leadership roles is not in the best interests of the community. While, in theory, that advice could simply be given to the Nomcom, there is reason to believe that a different model for consideration of renewal or replacement for members of the leadership would be more efficient for the Nomcom and would impose less hardship on incumbents and the community. This document outlines that alternate method. 1.1 Mailing List This proposal should be discussed on the main ietf list at ietf.org. 2. The Review and Clean Nomination Model The current nomination process pits incumbents, incumbent performance, and questions of stability in the IESG against potential other candidates. This is undesirable for a number of reasons. It creates the notion of incumbents being "fired" rather than honorably retired to the citizenry after a brief period of contributing to the community by assuming a leadership role. And, while there is significant value in treating stability as a goal, it can also create distortions about the degree of support various ideas have in the community. This specification changes the current model by reintroducing some principles that the author believes are widely held in the community and optimizing the selection process to support those principles. The principles include: o Service in the IETF's leadership bodies is a short-term contribution to the community, not a career. Indeed, assuming those positions may be considered a responsibility to the community. o It takes long enough to learn the job of being an effective AD that, in general, having someone retire after a single two-year term is uneconomic for the community. o Just as retirement of an AD after one term should be considered a major step because of the inefficiencies of the learning period, the six-month or more period in which an incumbent is uncertain about whether work should be planned that spans the "first meeting of the next year" introduces inefficiencies that should be minimized to the degree possible. o A demonstrated shortage of people willing to do work in the IETF should be taken as an indication that there is insufficient real community interest in the work to reach a meaningful consensus about high-quality results. While that position appears to be reasonably well-understood with regard to the number of active Klensin Expires January 10, 2006 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft Nomcom and Terms of Office July 2005 IETF participants interested in putting a working group together, and in finding leadership for working groups, the same principle probably should be applied to ADs and areas: if there are only one or two people willing and qualified to do the AD job, that may be an indication that the IETF should review the appropriateness of that area's existence or definition. To deal effectively with these problems, the Nomcom consideration and evaluation process is broken into two phases. 2.1 Phase 1: Review of Incumbents Incumbent performance should be evaluated, not compared to potential other candidates or replacements. The incumbent will always have more experience. An AD who has done his or her job well, will have accumulated strong proponents and probably strong detractors. Other candidates are always risks, and direct comparison is inevitably difficult. In Phase 1, the Nomcom will evaluate the performance of incumbents, collecting information from the community as needed to do that. The nomcom is instructed that an incumbent should be returned once (i.e., permitted/encouraged to serve two terms) unless there is strong evidence of problems (e.g., incompetence, inability to work with WGs, non-feasance, or malfeasance). Conversely, the nomcom should assume that it is better to return an incumbent who has served two terms to the community and active WG work unless some special circumstances, including but not limited to an outstanding job, apply. The level of special circumstances required for a fourth, or subsequent, term should be required to be much higher than that for a third: the intent is to make more than three terms a rare and nearly impossible event without formally prohibiting that through a term limit: it is important that the Nomcom retain flexibility and the opportunity to judge special circumstances. [[ Note in draft: In informal discussions before the initial version of this draft was completed and posted, there was considerable discussion about whether it was better to offer the Nomcom the guidance above, discouraging terms beyond the second, or whether to flatly prohibit more than two terms. One group believed that giving the Nomcom a little extra flexibility was a good idea; the other believed that any additional flexibility would likely lead to very long terms since there would always be a reason to make an exception. The community will need to discuss, and decide upon, this issue. ]] Discussions between the nomcom and a candidate as to whether that candidate is willing to serve again should be covered by the nomcom's normal privacy rules except as mutually agreed. If the nomcom chooses to not return a candidate who is willing to serve, the Klensin Expires January 10, 2006 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft Nomcom and Terms of Office July 2005 expectation is that this will be indistinguishable to the community from the candidate voluntarily stepping down. Under normal circumstances, the nomcom is expected to conduct informational evaluations of even those candidates who have chosen to step down (the evaluations may inform later choices), but such candidates may negotiate with the nomcom as appropriate, perhaps supplying in-depth analysis of the relevant Area and its status and issues as an alternative. At the end of this phase, the nomcom submits the list of returning candidates to the IAB as usual. The IAB makes its decision and the choices are announced to the community. The list of (remaining) open slots is then announced to the community and nominations and recommendations sought. Any incumbent who is not returned in this phase is not eligible for the relevant position in the second phase. 2.2 Phase 2: Nomination and Selection of New Candidates This procedure works exactly as described in [RFC3777], with the understanding that no incumbent will ever be a candidate for the same position under this process. As a side-effect, the process makes it more difficult than it has traditionally been to shift people around within the IESG: it is considered an explicit corollary to the principles above that an incumbent AD is one area should normally have WG-level exposure in a new area before being considered as a candidate for AD in that area. 2.3 Revised schedule [[to be supplied]] 3. Open Questions [[Note in draft: To be emptied and removed before Last Call]] This specification has been written to apply to the IESG only, since the IESG's operational role and observed rates of AD burnout make it most obviously important there. However, consideration should be given as to whether a similar or identical model should be applied to the IAB and/or other appointments made by the Nomcom. 4. Internationalization Considerations This specification is about IETF Procedures. It has no impact on internationalization issues. Klensin Expires January 10, 2006 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft Nomcom and Terms of Office July 2005 5. IANA Considerations This specification is about IETF Procedures. It has no impact on IANA issues and does not contemplate any IANA actions. 6. Security considerations This specification is about IETF Procedures for leadership selection. It has no impact on Internet security issues. 7. Acknowledgements [[ to be supplied ]] 8. References 8.1 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. 8.2 Informative References Author's Address John C Klensin 1770 Massachusetts Ave, #322 Cambridge, MA 02140 USA Phone: +1 617 491 5735 Email: john-ietf@jck.com Klensin Expires January 10, 2006 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft Nomcom and Terms of Office July 2005 Intellectual Property Statement The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in this document or the extent to which any license under such rights might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be found in BCP 78 and BCP 79. Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at http://www.ietf.org/ipr. The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at ietf-ipr@ietf.org. Disclaimer of Validity This document and the information contained herein are provided on an "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. Copyright Statement Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2005). This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors retain all their rights. Acknowledgment Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the Internet Society. Klensin Expires January 10, 2006 [Page 7]