On 3/6/2008 10:44 PM, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
Lakshminath Dondeti skrev:
A report on the nomcom's activities is available at
direct any comments to ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org(_dot_) I will make a brief
presentation at the IESG plenary.
This document reports on the work of Nomcom 2007-8. The topics of
discussion include the experiences in starting the nomcom process
early enough to facilitate the nomcom to do their work at 2 face-to-
face meetings, the various logistical challenges involved in the
nomcom process and the differing interpretations of RFC 3777 by
different people and organizations involved in the process. This
document also discusses the challenges in the interaction between the
nomcom and the confirmation bodies.
IETF mailing list
thank you very much for providing the report - and thank you for trying
to defend people's expectations of confidentiality!
<as nomcom chair>
You are welcome.
I do agree with Scott that the process needs clarification - unlike him,
I think it can be done without reopening 3777 on this point.
<speaking as an individual>
Sure, there are ways.
A solution without changing 3777 is for future chairs to be made aware
that this is coming and advise them that they need to prepare accordingly.
First, it will be great if the IAB could clarify their requirements. It
is simply not acceptable to say candidate statement == questionnaire
response. Nomcoms may collect all kinds of information from nominees
through a questionnaire or for that matter, other means. The
questionnaire itself is prepared by a nomcom process. They cannot share
that information just because a confirmation body asks for it pointing
to their own internal documents.
Future nomcoms could, in the absence of any response from the current
IAB or the one a week from today, include an item in the questionnaire
that asks for information for IAB's consumption: specifically, CV and
"candidate's statement" (nominee's statement, when the nomcom asks for
it) pointing to http://www.iab.org/documents/docs/2003-07-23-nomcom.html.
Note: A variation of the above idea has been suggested by others. I am
not coming up with anything original there.
Of course the question then is, what purpose does 3777 serve when a
confirming body chooses to prepare their own list of what needs to be
provided as supporting material? To repeat my own take on this, of all
things, 3777 is quite clear on what needs to be provided. There is no
ambiguity whatsoever. The text that the IAB point to -- "all
information and any means acceptable to them" does not say anything
about the nomcom facilitating it. Now one could say, "any means
acceptable" includes not confirming until the information they ask for
is provided. If we go down that road however, the same text reference
could be used (note: hypothetical case) to ask for community feedback.
The other question is why should the IAB get any special consideration
here? Surely, the IESG and the ISOC BoT could ask for more information
too and should be privy to the same level of information that IAB is
So, we also need to be consistent, however we choose to do this going
forward. What is not good is to leave it be and let each nomcom fight
it out with the IAB.
I'll have more to say when that discussion opens up.
The time is now, assuming that the next nomcom starts 2-3 months from
now. The timing is especially crucial if the consensus points to an
update to 3777 to resolve this as Scott has concluded.
IETF mailing list