This isn't a dangerous precedent, this is the IAB doing its due diligence.
One of the possible outcomes here could have been the IAB simply rejecting
those candidates for which it could not form an opinion due to lack of
information. Confirmation is an "affirmative" action, not simply a lack of a
reasons to reject. The confirming bodies should not be concerned with the way
the Nomcom got to the point of nominating someone (at least not during the
process), but they are there to examine the nomination and nominee and to
determine if - in the confirming body's best judgement - the nominee is
acceptable for the position.
The IAB, as early as 2003, drafted a document that described the information
they require to do their job of confirming IESG candidates. As I understand
this dispute, the Nomcom for some reason either never saw the document, or
decided they were just going to ignore it and hope for the best. I'm not sure
which was the case even from reading your document multiple times. And given
that you were a member of the previous Nomcom, I am surprised to hear that you
hadn't seen it at some point.
If the community wants the confirming bodies to be a rubber stamp, they should
limit the deliberations of the confirming bodies in a manner which, absent
errors of process, will result in the confirming bodies confirming the Nomcom's
choices. [However, I suggest anyone reading this consider and attempt to
describe publicly how any external entity, not privy to the internal
deliberative process of the Nomcom, could make such a judgement in a manner
that was anything but a coin toss]
If the community wants to continue with quality selections of its leadership,
it should probably continue with "strong" confirming board model.
With respect to your FUD comment below " I believe that the IAB's
interpretation of 3777 on the matter of the confirmation process sets a
dangerous precedence whereby one of the confirming bodies could require
that the Nomcom provide (samples of) verbatim feedback." - HOG WASH. The
specific language in the IAB document is:
1. Resume or CV of the candidate
2. Summary of the IETF feedback on the candidate
3. Summary of the IETF community feedback on the state of the Area
and it's current needs
4. The Nominating Committee's conclusions of the qualifications
required for the position
5. Nominating Committee's view of the qualifications of the
candidate to undertake the role associated with the position
6. Candidate's statement to the Nominating Committee on the
position, conveyed to the IAB with the candidate's knowledge and
assent
As someone who's been in all 4 nomcom related positions (Chair, Voting Member,
Liason(past chair), Confirming Body (IAB)), (and the guy who actually wrote
the first nomcom Questionnaire with the idea of gathering in an orderly manner
the information we were going to need to provide to the confirming bodies), I
find none of this either inappropriate or over-reaching.
And finally, a closer reading of RFC3777 will reveal that this dispute between
the IAB and Nomcom probably shouldn't have gone to 3777 dispute resolution.
* Section 6 says "The dispute resolution process described here is to be
used as indicated elsewhere in this document. Its applicability in other
circumstances is beyond the scope of this document."
* The four cases I find are:
* [Disputes between Liasons and the Nomcom] Liaisons from the IESG,
IAB, and Internet Society Board of Trustees (if one was appointed) 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 it according to the dispute resolution process stated elsewhere in
this document.
* [Disputes between current and prior chairs] The prior year's Chair is
expected to review the actions and activities of the current Chair and to
report any concerns or issues to the nominating committee Chair immediately.
If they can not resolve the issue between themselves, the prior year's Chair
must report it according to the dispute resolution process stated elsewhere in
this document.
* [Related to random selection of the members] The community must have
at least 1 week during which any member may challenge the results of the random
selection.(P) The challenge must be made in writing (email is acceptable) to
the Chair. The Chair has 48 hours to review the challenge and offer a
resolution to the member. If the resolution is not accepted by the member,
that member may report the challenge according to the dispute resolution
process stated elsewhere in this document.
* [Disputes between members and the Chair] Any member of the committee
who has an issue or concern regarding the Chair should report it to the prior
year's Chair immediately. The prior year's Chair is expected to report it to
the Chair immediately. If they can not resolve the issue between themselves,
the prior year's Chair must report it according to the dispute resolution
process stated elsewhere in this document.
But fait is accompli so... :-)
And continuing - the issues that sparked the IAB document occurred during the
term (and almost at the end) of the WG that did 3777, not prior to it. I think
3777 had gone through several last calls and there was all that pesky secrecy
stuff - we couldn't actually tell the WG WHY certain changes should really be
made. That resulted in a document that did not include the IAB requirements
and mentioned above.
Jim Galvin can probably do a better job of describing the timeline. The fact
that we didn't turn right around and reopen the process to add these
requirements (or prohibit them) is mostly due to extreme exhaustion after both
the WG and the confirming process.
Later, Mike
At 11:10 PM 3/15/2008, Lakshminath Dondeti wrote:
So, what should we do now? First, I don't believe what Harald has
suggested is the right direction. I believe that the IAB's
interpretation of 3777 on the matter of the confirmation process sets a
dangerous precedence whereby one of the confirming bodies could require
that the nomcom provide (samples of) verbatim feedback. One could
interpret the same text that the IAB cites -- all information and any
means acceptable to them -- as being in support of that requirement as
well. The community tends to express their lack of confidence in the
process by not participating, for instance, not volunteering or not
providing feedback.
_______________________________________________
IETF mailing list
IETF(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf