At 12:34 21-08-2012, Barry Leiba wrote:
I do, and I actually had the same problem with it when I wrote it as
you do. So help me, please: How *should* this be put? I don't like,
"and those employed in the RFC Editor function," and I really can't
think of a concise, clean, accurate way to write it down, though we
all (today) know what it means. Text, please, someone.
RFC 4844 (see Section 3.1) uses the term "RFC Editor". RFC 6635
mentions "RFC Editor function". I suggest going with the RFC 4844
argument about simplicity and using "RFC Editor". I cannot think of
an accurate way to write that paragraph.
I'm inclined to pull it out (having not checked that with SM yet,
though). Does anyone (including SM) think it definitely needs to be
in here?
I don't have a strong opinion about the erratum. Pull it out.
At 12:45 21-08-2012, Donald Eastlake wrote:
In particular, I believe the there are Editorial Boards that the
various fragments of the RFC Editor appoint and consult which should
not be excluded.
These bodies were left out. There is a comment in the draft labelled
as anchor1.
At 13:11 21-08-2012, Margaret Wasserman wrote:
Why do you want to rule out employees of those groups?
I don't think that most of them would have any interest in
volunteering for the nomcom, but why would it be a problem if they
did? I mean, I could picture someone who worked for the RFC Editor
who was also technically involved in the IETF, like Aaron Falk used
to be, and I don't know why we would want to disqualify someone like
that from volunteering for the nomcom.
I'll comment as part of the message which Adrian posted.
At 03:10 21-08-2012, Adrian Farrel wrote:
However, the document very quickly launches into a discussion of other
people to exclude from NomCom. It does this by introducing the concept
of a "conflict of interest." There may be a valid debate to have about
conflict of interest, but I personally find it a very long wedge, and
although there may be clear-cut cases at either extreme, it is by no
means clear where to draw the line.
Yes.
I find the excuse used (that those excluded are unlikely to volunteer)
as rather poor taste. It may be true that such people have not
volunteered in the past, but that should not be used as a reason. You
are removing rights that people previously had - you should have good,
stand-alone reasons and not depend on whether or not earlier holders of
certain posts exercised those rights.
The last sentence broaches an interesting angle. From RFC 3777:
"The IETF Secretariat is responsible for confirming that
volunteers have met the attendance requirement."
"The IETF Secretariat is responsible for confirming that each
signatory is qualified to be a voting member of a nominating
committee."
As the IETF Secretariat has duties in the RFC 3777 mechanism, would
it be a good stand-alone reason to remove the right to be a volunteer?
The RSE and ISE are under contract with the IAOC. The other part of
the RFC Editor (function) are external organizations.
At 13:52 21-08-2012, Bob Hinden wrote:
While on this topic, we might as well get it right. The text in the draft is:
This document also excludes certain individuals who are directly paid
for their work with the IETF, and who, therefore, have a direct
personal financial incentive in the selection of the leadership
boards. We limit this exclusion to a few people who are paid for
long-term full-time work. In practice, they are unlikely to
volunteer for the NomCom anyway, so this addition makes little
practical change.
I assume the intent is exclude people who are paid by the IETF to do
work in the IETF. For example, the IAD. The problem is that no one
is paid by the IETF. The IETF has several people who do work at
it's direction. This is done as direct employees of ISOC or as
contractors who have their contracts with ISOC. We also hire (via
ISOC) companies that provide services to the IETF. This ranges from
the secretariat services, NOC services, tools development, program
management services, and tools specification development. In these
cases it difficult to tell if an individual is working for the IETF
"long-term full-time work".
Ok. :-)
Further, the text as written could be interpreted to exclude people
who's employers pay they to participate in the IETF. For example,
that would include me because it is part of my job to participate in
the IETF. I don't think that is the intent of the text in the
draft, but it would be easy to interpret it that way. OK, maybe I
don't do it full time, but all of the IESG position require full time support.
It is the additions to RFC 3777 that matters as they become part of
the RFC 3777 rules.
I'll discuss about the comments with Barry before commenting further.
Regards,
S. Moonesamy