On Sep 15, 2014, at 10:44 PM, Michael StJohns <mstjohns(_at_)comcast(_dot_)net>
wrote:
At 05:32 PM 9/15/2014, Jari Arkko wrote:
Michael,
Your list is good and worth working on. Thank you!
I do have some comments and questions though.
1) Update 3777 to merge in the various changes that have been posted. (this
rev)
2) Add text to fix the revealed-broken recall process
Remind me what this is about.
This was related to the painful process we started to implement to resolve
the IAOC issue. Basically, even at the beginning of the process we started
finding problems (e.g. petitioner's couldn't serve on the recall committee
turned out to have some warts). I looked at the process as described in 3777
and realized that it would take most of 2 months to complete the process and
concluded that a long drawn out process was bad for the IETF. That led to
the text in the above document to shorten various process related actions
(selection of the recall committee comes from last nomcom volunteer list as a
suggestion).
I started the only recall process, it started in October and ran into November
meeting.
One of the issues I ran into was “who is nomcom eligible” this is important
when a process spans an IETF meeting, i.e. can someone gain/loose nomcom
eligibility during the meeting.
Having people that sign recall petition excluded from the recall committee is
double edged sword, it may motivate people to either sign (in order to avoid
serving) or refuse to server in the hope of being picked for committee.
I think the suggestion that last set of Nomcom volunteers be used as a group to
select from is a good one, but that again gets into the the issue of who is
nomcom eligibility
at the time of appointment.
The whole set of rules as to who works for the same company are difficult at
best to manage, I would like to see them clarified to be
- “affiliation at last IETF meeting attended”,
- “affiliation on the date of action.
I had to rule out a person who told me confidentially that they were
interviewing a company X which already had max people signing the recall, just
to avoid possible
problem that down the road.
There is no time limit to collect recall signatures. One month seems reasonable
time frame for failing a recall petition.
On a different note, appointing nomcom in current process depends on having a
chair.
Appointing a chair frequently is difficult due to the time commitment that the
chair must make.
I would seriously advocate that we remove from the chair as much work as
possible,
for example anyone can run the selection process.
We can possibly create a position of Nomcom Selector who’s only role is to run
the selection process on time during April and May each year.
The same person would be expected to run the selection process if there is need
at later times.
An alternate is to have the secretariat run this process, as there is no magic
other than selecting the
seeds for the program.
Olafur