Network Working Group J. Klensin
Internet-Draft
Expires: December 26, 2006 S. Dawkins
Huawei
June 24, 2006
Terms of Appointments for NomCom-selected IETF Leadership Positions
draft-klensin-nomcom-term-01.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 December 26, 2006.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2006).
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 & Dawkins Expires December 26, 2006 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft NomCom and Terms of Office June 2006
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. Previous Discussion Points . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.1. IESG-only, or all NomCom appointments? . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.2. "Doing an excellent job" as justification for third
term? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.3. Guidance, or hard limit on service length? . . . . . . . . 7
4. Internationalization Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
6. Security considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
7. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . . . 10
Klensin & Dawkins Expires December 26, 2006 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft NomCom and Terms of Office June 2006
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
Klensin & Dawkins Expires December 26, 2006 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft NomCom and Terms of Office June 2006
reasonably well-understood with regard to the number of active
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 divided 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,
inability to work with other ADs, 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 apply.
While this process allows flexibility, the NomCom is instructed that
"special circumstances" should be a rare occurrence, based on what is
best for the affected area, the IESG, and the IETF as a whole.
Simply doing an outstanding job as an AD should not constitute
"special circumstances" that would justify a third term.
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.
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
expectation is that this will be indistinguishable to the community
Klensin & Dawkins Expires December 26, 2006 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft NomCom and Terms of Office June 2006
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 working experience within one or more WGs in a new area before
being considered as a candidate for AD in that area.
2.3. Revised schedule
[[to be supplied]]
The authors are aware of other proposals that would also affect the
NomCom timeline. Rather than trying to develop a revised schedule on
a per-proposal basis, we suggest that one NomCom schedule revision be
considered, based on this and other proposals that would be
accommodated.
3. Previous Discussion Points
In informal discussions before the initial version of this draft was
completed and posted, there was considerable discussion on three
points:
o Whether this proposal should apply only to IESG appointments, or
to all NomCom appointments,
o Whether "doing an outstanding job" is justification for third
terms, and
Klensin & Dawkins Expires December 26, 2006 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft NomCom and Terms of Office June 2006
o Whether this proposal should contain a statement of guidance, or
hard term limits.
Reasonable people spoke in support of both sides on each of these
points, but the proposal authors had to make choices. The community
will need to discuss, and decide upon, these issues.
3.1. IESG-only, or all NomCom appointments?
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.
It is possible that 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.
3.2. "Doing an excellent job" as justification for third term?
This specification is written to allow NomCom to return ADs for third
terms, and beyond, due to "special circumstances". One question
we've been asked is whether "doing an outstanding job" should be
included in "special circumstances".
While our intention is to provide guidance to NomCom, rather than
rules, this specification proposes that this guidance be "no".
o The community is better served by having former ADs returning to
technical work. A consistent criticism of the current working
group process is that specifications often lack sufficient cross-
area review when they are forwarded for publication. ADs provide
this type of review, but currently-serving ADs don't have time to
provide reviews early in the development of a draft, where it is
most useful and most likely to have a positive impact.
o Allowing "doing an outstanding job" to constitute "special
circumstances" removes deterministic benefits of this model. The
intention is that ADs return to the community after two terms. It
is desired that all ADs "do an outstanding job" - this proposal
would remove ADs who aren't headed for "outstanding", after their
first term - but Only in Lake Woebegon are all the children above
average, and Lake Wobegon is a fictitious place.
o We also note that former ADs are often asked to serve as working
group chairs in difficult situations, to help with BOFs and WG
charter discussions, and to carry out assignments that benefit
from AD experience but do not require the assignee to be a serving
AD. It is unlikely that an outstanding AD who wants to continue
to serve the community will be overlooked after leaving the IESG.
Klensin & Dawkins Expires December 26, 2006 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft NomCom and Terms of Office June 2006
3.3. Guidance, or hard limit on service length?
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 authors of this proposal prefer to offer NomCom guidance, rather
than rules. To take one example - if the NomCom believes that
returning a third-term AD is appropriate (due, perhaps, to the other
serving co-area director stepping down before the end of a second
term), we prefer to allow NomCom this flexibility, rather than
restrict them to a course of action that seems ill-advised.
4. Internationalization Considerations
This specification is about IETF Procedures. It has no impact on
internationalization issues.
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.
Klensin & Dawkins Expires December 26, 2006 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft NomCom and Terms of Office June 2006
8.2. Informative References
Klensin & Dawkins Expires December 26, 2006 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft NomCom and Terms of Office June 2006
Authors' Addresses
John C Klensin
1770 Massachusetts Ave, #322
Cambridge, MA 02140
USA
Phone: +1 617 491 5735
Email: john-ietf@jck.com
Spencer Dawkins
Huawei Technologies (USA)
1700 Alma Drive, Suite 100
Plano, TX 75075
US
Phone: +1 469 229 5397
Fax: +1 972 509 0309
Email: spencer@mcsr-labs.org
Klensin & Dawkins Expires December 26, 2006 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft NomCom and Terms of Office June 2006
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 (2006). 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 & Dawkins Expires December 26, 2006 [Page 10]