IAB and IESG Selection, Confirmation, and Recall Process: Operation of the Nominating and Recall Committees
RFC 3777
Revision differences
Document history
| Date | Rev. | By | Action |
|---|---|---|---|
|
2020-01-21
|
09 | (System) | Received changes through RFC Editor sync (added Verified Errata tag) |
|
2012-08-22
|
09 | (System) | post-migration administrative database adjustment to the No Objection position for Thomas Narten |
|
2012-08-22
|
09 | (System) | post-migration administrative database adjustment to the Abstain position for Margaret Wasserman |
|
2004-06-18
|
09 | Amy Vezza | State Changes to RFC Published from RFC Ed Queue by Amy Vezza |
|
2004-06-18
|
09 | Amy Vezza | [Note]: 'RFC 3777<br>BCP 10' added by Amy Vezza |
|
2004-06-16
|
09 | (System) | RFC published |
|
2004-03-03
|
09 | Amy Vezza | State Changes to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent by Amy Vezza |
|
2004-03-02
|
09 | Amy Vezza | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent |
|
2004-03-02
|
09 | Amy Vezza | IESG has approved the document |
|
2004-03-02
|
09 | Amy Vezza | Closed "Approve" ballot |
|
2004-03-02
|
09 | Harald Alvestrand | State Changes to Approved-announcement to be sent from IESG Evaluation::AD Followup by Harald Alvestrand |
|
2004-03-02
|
09 | Thomas Narten | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Thomas Narten has been changed to No Objection from Discuss by Thomas Narten |
|
2004-03-02
|
09 | Harald Alvestrand | Ballot has been issued by Harald Alvestrand |
|
2004-02-25
|
09 | David Kessens | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for David Kessens by David Kessens |
|
2004-02-24
|
09 | Alex Zinin | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alex Zinin by Alex Zinin |
|
2004-02-22
|
09 | Harald Alvestrand | State Changes to IESG Evaluation::AD Followup from IESG Evaluation::Revised ID Needed by Harald Alvestrand |
|
2004-02-22
|
09 | Harald Alvestrand | Version -09 is being evaluated for whether or not it addresses the comments from the IESG on the -07 version. |
|
2004-02-22
|
09 | Margaret Cullen | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Margaret Wasserman has been changed to Abstain from Discuss by Margaret Wasserman |
|
2004-02-17
|
09 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-nomcom-rfc2727bis-09.txt |
|
2003-11-24
|
09 | Harald Alvestrand | The WG reached consensus on all outstanding issues in its Minneapolis meeting. An -09 version is expected documenting the outcome of discussion. It will then … The WG reached consensus on all outstanding issues in its Minneapolis meeting. An -09 version is expected documenting the outcome of discussion. It will then be returned to the IESG for re-evaluation. |
|
2003-10-27
|
08 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-nomcom-rfc2727bis-08.txt |
|
2003-10-07
|
09 | Thomas Narten | [Ballot discuss] > Liaisons from the IESG, IAB, and Internet Society Board of > Trustees are expected to review … [Ballot discuss] > Liaisons from the IESG, IAB, and Internet Society Board of > Trustees are expected to review the operation and executing > process of the nominating committee and to report any concerns > or issues to the Chair of the nominating committee immediately. > If they can not resolve the issue between themselves liaisons > must report the issue to their respective bodies. If their > respective body agrees that there is an issue the liaison must > report it according to the dispute resolution process stated > elsewhere in this document. I worry that there will be problems with the above in practice. In particular, the text requires that a liaison report problems back to their respective group (i.e., IESG or IAB) before invoking the formal dispute resolution mechanism. But confidentiality rules rather limit what the liaison can say to their body, and in the case where dispute resolution may need invoking, it seems like details will be important. I worry that this will create problems in practice, with it being unclear what can be said. And if that is the case, it is unclear what value the discussion within the respective I* would actually have. This is perhaps more a problem for the IESG, since it has no confirming role, but it seems like a general issue. There are ways of dealing with this, but I'm not sure what is best or what the WG might think. Some initial thoughts: - I note that the current wording doesn't mention the obvious, i.e., have the liaisons and previous chair get together and discuss before escalating. One could also have the liaison (independently) decide whether to formally appeal after such a consultation. This avoids the confidentiality issue and would seem like a necessary check as part of escalating issues. - add some wording saying that confidentiality rules allow sharing of info as needed to assess whether to file a formal complaint. |
|
2003-10-07
|
09 | Thomas Narten | [Ballot comment] > If a voting volunteer member is recalled the committee may > choose to proceed with only … [Ballot comment] > If a voting volunteer member is recalled the committee may > choose to proceed with only 9 voting volunteers at its own > discretion. In all other cases the Chair must repeat the random > selection process including an announcement of the iteration > prior to the actual selection as stated elsewhere in this > document. The above implies to me that the nomcome is required to find a replacement for a resignation, but is not for a recall. Shouldn't the nomcom be allowed to also not replace resignations? I.e, I assume that the nomcom would have the option of filling or not filling any nomcom opening, regardless of how it occurs. > It is consistent with this rule for the nominating committee to > choose one or more of the currently open positions to which it > may assign a term greater than 2 years in order to ensure the > ideal application of this rule in the future. s/greater than 2 years/of up to 3 years/ (right now, in theory, nomcom could pick the length of time, though I suspect a lot of folk would be surprised if this ever happend...) > committee. The addition must be approved by all members of the > committee according to its established voting mechanism. > Advisors participate as individuals. > "all members" wording implies everyone must agree. What is the intent here? Is it "must be approved by a quorum of the committee according to its established voting mechanism"? Note: similar wording appears elsewhere. > conducted. A member may recalled if at least a quorum of all > committee members agree, including the vote of the member being > recalled. What does this mean? simple majority if there is a quorum? (I ask because in most cases this document doesn't proscribe rules, leaving that to the nomcom to decide.) > 4. Confirmed candidates are expected to serve at least a 2 year > term. not consistent with interim appointments > First, when there is only one official nominating committee the add comma after committee > As of the publication of this document the current mechanism is ^ > an email message to both the "ietf" and the "ietf-announce" > mailing lists. comma above > None of the Chair, liaisons, or advisors vote on the selection > of candidates. They do vote on all other issues before the > committee unless otherwise specified. s/specified/specified in this document/? (what is the intent?) > 6. A Chair, in consultation with the Internet Society President, > may appoint a temporary substitute. Better to say "... for the Chair position". > If they can not resolve the issue between themselves liaisons comma after themselves. > The confirmation process must be completed at least one month > prior to the First IETF. s/must/should/ other parts of the document imply should on this topic. > The term of a nominating committee begins when its members are > officially announced. The term ends at the Third IETF (not > three meetings) after the next nominating committee's term > begins. ambigous wording. Reword: The term ends at the Third IETF (not three meetings), that is, the IETF after the next nominating committee's term begins. |
|
2003-10-03
|
09 | Thomas Narten | [Ballot comment] > 4. Confirmed candidates are expected to serve at least a 2 year > term. not consistent with interim … [Ballot comment] > 4. Confirmed candidates are expected to serve at least a 2 year > term. not consistent with interim appointments > First, when there is only one official nominating committee the add comma after committee > As of the publication of this document the current mechanism is ^ > an email message to both the "ietf" and the "ietf-announce" > mailing lists. comma above > None of the Chair, liaisons, or advisors vote on the selection > of candidates. They do vote on all other issues before the > committee unless otherwise specified. s/specified/specified in this document/? (what is the intent?) > 6. A Chair, in consultation with the Internet Society President, > may appoint a temporary substitute. Better to say "... for the Chair position". > If they can not resolve the issue between themselves liaisons comma after themselves. > The confirmation process must be completed at least one month > prior to the First IETF. s/must/should/ other parts of the document imply should on this topic. > The term of a nominating committee begins when its members are > officially announced. The term ends at the Third IETF (not > three meetings) after the next nominating committee's term > begins. ambigous wording. Reword: The term ends at the Third IETF (not three meetings), that is, the IETF after the next nominating committee's term begins. |
|
2003-10-03
|
09 | Thomas Narten | [Ballot discuss] > Liaisons from the IESG, IAB, and Internet Society Board of > Trustees are expected to review … [Ballot discuss] > Liaisons from the IESG, IAB, and Internet Society Board of > Trustees are expected to review the operation and executing > process of the nominating committee and to report any concerns > or issues to the Chair of the nominating committee immediately. > If they can not resolve the issue between themselves liaisons > must report the issue to their respective bodies. If their > respective body agrees that there is an issue the liaison must > report it according to the dispute resolution process stated > elsewhere in this document. How does this relate to the confidentiality requirement? It seems hard to have a useful conversation within the IESG/IAB without possibly violating confidentiality. Possible alternative: would it make sense for the liaisons and previous chair to get together, discuss, and then the person who has the issue decides themself (individually) whether to file a formal complaint? > If a voting volunteer member is recalled the committee may > choose to proceed with only 9 voting volunteers at its own > discretion. In all other cases the Chair must repeat the random > selection process including an announcement of the iteration > prior to the actual selection as stated elsewhere in this > document. The above implies to me that the nomcome is required to find a replacement for a resignation, but is not for a recall. Shouldn't the nomcom be allowed to also not replace resignations? > It is consistent with this rule for the nominating committee to > choose one or more of the currently open positions to which it > may assign a term greater than 2 years in order to ensure the > ideal application of this rule in the future. s/greater than 2 years/of up to 3 years/ (right now, in theory, nomcom could pick the length of time) > committee. The addition must be approved by all members of the > committee according to its established voting mechanism. > Advisors participate as individuals. > "all members" wording implies everyone must agree. What is the intent here? Is it "must be approved by a quorum of the committee according to its established voting mechanism"? Note: similar wording appears elsewhere. > conducted. A member may recalled if at least a quorum of all > committee members agree, including the vote of the member being > recalled. What does this mean? simple majority if there is a quorum? (I ask because in most cases this document doesn't proscribe rules, leaving that to the nomcom to decide.) |
|
2003-10-02
|
09 | Amy Vezza | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded by Amy Vezza |
|
2003-10-02
|
09 | Amy Vezza | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Amy Vezza |
|
2003-10-02
|
09 | Amy Vezza | Removed from agenda for telechat - 2003-10-02 by Amy Vezza |
|
2003-10-02
|
09 | Amy Vezza | State Changes to IESG Evaluation::Revised ID Needed from IESG Evaluation by Amy Vezza |
|
2003-10-02
|
09 | Margaret Cullen | [Ballot comment] EDITORIAL: >Abstract > > The process by which the members of the IAB and IESG are selected, > confirmed, and recalled is specified. … [Ballot comment] EDITORIAL: >Abstract > > The process by which the members of the IAB and IESG are selected, > confirmed, and recalled is specified. This document is a > self-consistent, organized compilation of the process as it was known > at the time of publication. Very weak... I also don't think that the last sentence is true, as this document changes some things. Suggestions: Add a bit more information (i.e mention the Nominations Commitee?) and remove "as it was known at the time of publication". The section numbering in this document doesn't match usual conventions. This makes it harder to refer to sections in this document unambiguously. > 3. One-half of each of the then current IESG and IAB positions is > selected to be reviewed each year. s/One-half of each of/One-half of/ s/positions is/positions are/ > The intent of this rule to ensure the review of approximately > one-half of each of the IESG and IAB sitting members each year. s/one-half of each of/one-half of/ > 4. Confirmed candidates are expected to serve at least a 2 year > term. This isn't always true. Replacement candidates may serve terms of less than two years. > A term may begin or end no sooner than the > first day of the meeting and no later than the last day of the > meeting as determined by the mutual agreement of the currently > sitting member and the confirmed candidate. The confirmed > candidate's term may overlap the sitting member's term during the > meeting as determined by their mutual agreement. How does this apply to IAB terms? In the case where there is more than one new IAB member, I don't think that it is defined which IAB member each new member is replacing. >In section 4, subsection 7: > Liaisons from the IESG, IAB, and Internet Society Board of > Trustees are expected to review the operation and executing > process of the nominating committee and to report any concerns There is a mention here of a liaison from the ISOC board. But, there in section 4.3 there is a list of nomcom members that indicates how they are selected, and the ISOC liaison is not listed. The organization of this document seems to result in repeating a lot of information. There are also a lot of forward references. This makes it difficult to find the part(s) of the document that apply to a particular part of the process. |
|
2003-10-02
|
09 | Margaret Cullen | [Ballot discuss] These are the substantive comments related to my DISCUSS. I have also entered editorial comments in the "comments" section. >In section 2: > … [Ballot discuss] These are the substantive comments related to my DISCUSS. I have also entered editorial comments in the "comments" section. >In section 2: > The nominating committee will be given the title of the positions > to be reviewed and a brief description of the desirable set of > qualifications of the candidate that is nominated to fill each > position. Is this information sent publicly or privately? There are two issues here: 1) I think that the "description of the desirable set of qualifications" should be posted publicly, along with the list of open positions when the call for nominations is sent. 2) The IESG and IAB should know, unambiguously, whether or not the information will be publicly disseminated before providing it. >From section 3, subsection 8: > It is consistent with these rules for the announcements of a > resignation, of the existence of a mid-term vacancy, and of the > confirmed candidates to all occur at the same time as long as the > actual sequence of events that occurred did so in the following > order. > > * The nominating committee completes the advice and consent > process for the candidate already sitting on another body. > > * The newly confirmed candidate resigns from their current > position. > > * The body with the new mid-term vacancy requests that the > nominating committee fill the position. > > * The Executive Director of the IETF informs the nominating > committee of the mid-term vacancy. > > * The nominating committee acts on the request to fill the > mid-term vacancy This section indicates that a position may be vacated and filled without the community being notified that a position is open. IMO, no position should be filled without public notice that the position is open and a public call for nominations. I understand one shool of thought that says that this is okay for IAB positions during the normal selection cycle. Because IAB members don't have separate responsibilities, it _might_ be okay to pick 6 IAB members from a candidate pool for 5 open positions, for example. However, even in this case, the community might want to know if a person with a particular specialty/area of expertise was moving, so that folks with that type of expertise could be nominated. This section would also be problematic for IESG positions. This could arise in any case where one IESG position is filled by a sitting IESG member who is not up for renewal. For example, consider a situation where the IESG chair does not volunteer for another term and is replaced by a sitting IESG member who is not up for renewal. Even though there are two ADs for most areas, the ADs often divide up the area into logical sections, requiring different expertise for each position. There are also issues with filling any postition according to this section if it is applied to interim vacancies. For example, the nomcom should not be empowered to move an IAB member to the IESG to fill and interim vacancy and replace the IAB member without making a public call for nominations for the open IAB position. |
|
2003-10-02
|
09 | Allison Mankin | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Allison Mankin |
|
2003-10-02
|
09 | Margaret Cullen | [Ballot discuss] SUBSTANTIVE: >Abstract > > The process by which the members of the IAB and IESG are selected, > confirmed, and recalled is specified. … [Ballot discuss] SUBSTANTIVE: >Abstract > > The process by which the members of the IAB and IESG are selected, > confirmed, and recalled is specified. This document is a > self-consistent, organized compilation of the process as it was known > at the time of publication. Very weak... I also don't think that the last sentence is true, as this document changes some things. >In section 2: > The nominating committee will be given the title of the positions > to be reviewed and a brief description of the desirable set of > qualifications of the candidate that is nominated to fill each > position. Is this information sent publicly or privately? There are two issues here: 1) I think that the "description of the desirable set of qualifications" should be sent publicly, along with the list of open positions when the call for nominations is sent. 2) The IESG and IAB should know, unambiguously, whether or not the information will be publicly disseminated before providing it. > 4. Confirmed candidates are expected to serve at least a 2 year > term. This isn't always true. Replacement candidates may serve terms of less than two years. > A term may begin or end no sooner than the > first day of the meeting and no later than the last day of the > meeting as determined by the mutual agreement of the currently > sitting member and the confirmed candidate. The confirmed > candidate's term may overlap the sitting member's term during the > meeting as determined by their mutual agreement. How does this apply to IAB terms? In the case where there is more than one new IAB member, I don't think that it is defined which IAB member each new member is replacing. >From section 3, subsection 8: > It is consistent with these rules for the announcements of a > resignation, of the existence of a mid-term vacancy, and of the > confirmed candidates to all occur at the same time as long as the > actual sequence of events that occurred did so in the following > order. > > * The nominating committee completes the advice and consent > process for the candidate already sitting on another body. > > * The newly confirmed candidate resigns from their current > position. > > * The body with the new mid-term vacancy requests that the > nominating committee fill the position. > > * The Executive Director of the IETF informs the nominating > committee of the mid-term vacancy. > > * The nominating committee acts on the request to fill the > mid-term vacancy From my reading, this means that a position can be vacated and filled without any community awareness that the position was ever open... Would there be a public call for nominations? This may be fine for IAB positions during the normal selection cycle -- IAB positions don't have separate responsibilities, and it should be fine to pick 6 IAB members from a candidate pool for 5 open positions, for example. But, this wouldn't be okay for IESG positions. This could arise in any case where one IESG position (i.e. the IETF chair) is filled by a sitting IESG member who is not up for renewal. There are also issues with filling IAB postitions according to this section if it is applied to interim vacancies. IMO, the nomcom should not be empowered to move an IAB member to the IESG to fill and interim vacancy and replace the IAB member without making a public call for nominations for the open IAB position. EDITORIAL: The section numbering in this document doesn't match usual conventions. > 3. One-half of each of the then current IESG and IAB positions is > selected to be reviewed each year. s/One-half of each of/One-half of/ s/positions is/positions are/ > The intent of this rule to ensure the review of approximately > one-half of each of the IESG and IAB sitting members each year. s/one-half of each of/one-half of/ >In section 4, subsection 7: > Liaisons from the IESG, IAB, and Internet Society Board of > Trustees are expected to review the operation and executing > process of the nominating committee and to report any concerns There is a mention here of a liaison from the ISOC board. But, there in section 4.3 there is a list of nomcom members that indicates how they are selected, and the ISOC liaison is not listed. The organization of this document seems to result in repeating a lot of information. There are also a lot of forward references. |
|
2003-10-02
|
09 | Margaret Cullen | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded by Margaret Wasserman |
|
2003-10-02
|
09 | Bert Wijnen | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Bert Wijnen |
|
2003-10-02
|
09 | Ned Freed | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Ned Freed |
|
2003-10-02
|
09 | Jon Peterson | [Ballot comment] The Introduction fastidiously notes that the organization of the IESG is outside the scope of the document. However, in so far as Section … [Ballot comment] The Introduction fastidiously notes that the organization of the IESG is outside the scope of the document. However, in so far as Section 3 bullet 3 explains that half of the IESG positions are reviewed by the NomCom per year, would it make sense to mention at a high level that IESG members serve in specific Areas, and that the review process is staggered to preserve continuity and institutional memory within Areas? This seems like an important detail of the NomCom process to omit, even if it might change as the IETF changes. I'd note that Section 3 bullet 3 already has a caveat about future IESG reorganization, so I'm not sure how it would hurt to talk about the current IESG structure, in the interests of fully depicting the existing practice. |
|
2003-10-02
|
09 | Jon Peterson | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Jon Peterson |
|
2003-10-01
|
09 | Steven Bellovin | [Ballot comment] The recall section makes no provision or even suggestion that the Recall Chair verify the putative signers. Section 5, Point 12 suggests that … [Ballot comment] The recall section makes no provision or even suggestion that the Recall Chair verify the putative signers. Section 5, Point 12 suggests that the committee consult with the sitting members of the IAB and IESG. I think that consultation with WG chairs should be suggested. |
|
2003-10-01
|
09 | Steven Bellovin | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Steve Bellovin |
|
2003-10-01
|
09 | Bill Fenner | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Bill Fenner |
|
2003-10-01
|
09 | Russ Housley | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Russ Housley |
|
2003-09-30
|
09 | Ted Hardie | [Ballot Position Update] Position has been changed to No Objection from Undefined by Ted Hardie |
|
2003-09-30
|
09 | Ted Hardie | [Ballot comment] I note that the oral tradition section indicates that no person should serve on both the IESG and IAB, except the IETF Chair … [Ballot comment] I note that the oral tradition section indicates that no person should serve on both the IESG and IAB, except the IETF Chair who serves on both by definition. I believe that there is some lack of clarity on whether the IAB Chair's role ex officio in the IESG means she "serves on", and that this is probably not the place to resolve that or go into the liaisons from one body to the other. To capture the same thing, how about: "No person should serve both on the IAB and as an Area Director, except the IETF Chair whose roles as an IAB member and Area Director of the General Area is set out elsewhere". |
|
2003-09-30
|
09 | Ted Hardie | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Undefined, has been recorded by Ted Hardie |
|
2003-09-20
|
09 | Harald Alvestrand | State Changes to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for AD Go-Ahead by Harald Alvestrand |
|
2003-09-20
|
09 | Harald Alvestrand | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Harald Alvestrand |
|
2003-09-20
|
09 | Harald Alvestrand | Ballot has been issued by Harald Alvestrand |
|
2003-09-20
|
09 | Harald Alvestrand | Created "Approve" ballot |
|
2003-09-20
|
09 | Harald Alvestrand | Placed on agenda for telechat - 2003-10-02 by Harald Alvestrand |
|
2003-09-20
|
09 | Harald Alvestrand | State Changes to Waiting for AD Go-Ahead from In Last Call by Harald Alvestrand |
|
2003-08-29
|
09 | Michael Lee | Last call sent |
|
2003-08-29
|
09 | Michael Lee | State Changes to In Last Call from Last Call Requested by Michael Lee |
|
2003-08-28
|
09 | Harald Alvestrand | State Change Notice email list have been change to avri@psg.com from |
|
2003-08-28
|
09 | Harald Alvestrand | Last Call was requested by Harald Alvestrand |
|
2003-08-28
|
09 | Harald Alvestrand | State Changes to Last Call Requested from AD Evaluation by Harald Alvestrand |
|
2003-08-28
|
09 | (System) | Ballot writeup text was added |
|
2003-08-28
|
09 | (System) | Last call text was added |
|
2003-08-28
|
09 | (System) | Ballot approval text was added |
|
2003-08-28
|
09 | Harald Alvestrand | Report from WG chair: > Technical summary: The 2727bis document updates the rules by which the Nomcom process is governed. In many cases ambiguities that … Report from WG chair: > Technical summary: The 2727bis document updates the rules by which the Nomcom process is governed. In many cases ambiguities that had opened up in 2727 due to practice where resolved. In other cases, situations that had been left to the discretion of the participants were codified. > > WG Summary: > I would say that the consensus on issues in the WG was mixed. In some case it was full consensus and in other case, the consensus was rough. In one case the process was left unchanged since the opposing sides of the issues were balanced and no consensus was deemed reachable. A quick summary by category: Smooth Consensus (nice term) - Issue on Nomcom archives being only for the term of the nomcom - Issue on restricting the number of Nomcom voting members from a single company - Issues around filling midterm vacancies; including lengthening the term of Nomcom to 15 months - Issues on conflict resolution - Change of procedure for recall of an I* member - Addition of oral tradition to document - Changes and clarification to timeline - Making process for recalling members of nomcom explicit - Invitation to ISOC to include a liaison Rough consensus - Term limits - resolved with a entry in oral tradition instead of a rule - Serving concurrently in IAB and IESG - resolved with a entry in oral tradition instead of a rule - Qualifications to serve on Nomcom - 3/5 or something more restrictive for experience - Clarification of relationship between liaison and the body they are members of. - Relation between confirming bodies and the Nomcom including the amount of information and communication between them. - Clarification of the roles on Nomcom participants - Slates and the ability of Nomcom to withdraw the nomination of a CB approved nominee when the entire slate is not accepted No consensus - Status Quo ante - Issue having to do with secrecy of nominee list. There was a strong set of arguments for making the list public at some point in the process, but the WG remained fairly evenly split on this idea. One issue that was resolved with rough consensus during the WG process was reopened again in Last Call - whether there should be some more stronger criteria then attendance at N out of M IETF meetings for being qualified to serve on the Nomcom. As it was, the WG had changed the criteria from 2/3 to 3/5. I decided not to reopen the issue since I did not believe their was new information to add in the request to reopen. I also did not want to risk having to reopen every issue that had been resolved through rough consensus. > > > Protocol Quality: The document has apparently been carefully reviewed by a few participants in the WG. No one was approached about a careful external review. SIRS was not called upon. I do hope it was reviewed by all of the esteemed members of the design team. |
|
2003-08-28
|
09 | Harald Alvestrand | Submitted for IESG evaluation on August 17, but request was lost due to a misaddressing (ietf-secretary rather than iesg-secretary). |
|
2003-08-28
|
09 | Harald Alvestrand | Draft Added by Harald Alvestrand |
|
2003-08-07
|
07 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-nomcom-rfc2727bis-07.txt |
|
2003-08-05
|
06 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-nomcom-rfc2727bis-06.txt |
|
2003-06-18
|
05 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-nomcom-rfc2727bis-05.txt |
|
2003-05-09
|
04 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-nomcom-rfc2727bis-04.txt |
|
2003-02-28
|
03 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-nomcom-rfc2727bis-03.txt |
|
2002-11-01
|
02 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-nomcom-rfc2727bis-02.txt |
|
2002-07-03
|
01 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-nomcom-rfc2727bis-01.txt |
|
2002-06-24
|
00 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-nomcom-rfc2727bis-00.txt |