| TOC |
|
This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF in full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference material or to cite them other than as “work in progress.”
The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.
This Internet-Draft will expire on January 29, 2010.
Copyright (c) 2009 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal Provisions Relating to IETF Documents in effect on the date of publication of this document (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info). Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect to this document.
This document updates RFC 3777, Section 3, Bullet 6 to allow a Nominating and Recall Commitee to disclose the list of nominees who are willing to be considered to serve in positions the committee is responsible for filling.
1.
Introduction
2.
Current Rules on Confidentiality
3.
Problems with Existing Rules
4.
Asking the Entire Community for Feedback
5.
Publishing a Nominee List
6.
Updated text from RFC 3777
7.
Security Considerations
8.
IANA Considerations
9.
Acknowledgements
10.
Normative References
Appendix A.
Concerns About Open Nominee Lists
§
Author's Address
| TOC |
The Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG), the Internet Architecture Board (IAB), and at-large IETF representatives to the IETF Administrative Oversight Committee (IAOC) are selected by a "Nominating and Recall Committee" (universally abbreviated as "NomCom"). [RFC3777] (Galvin, J., “IAB and IESG Selection, Confirmation, and Recall Process: Operation of the Nominating and Recall Committees,” June 2004.) defines how the NomCom is selected, and the processes it follows as it selects candidates for these positions.
The NomCom is responsible for filling positions across the breadth of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF). The NomCom needs relevant information about nominees being considered for these positions, but current [RFC3777] (Galvin, J., “IAB and IESG Selection, Confirmation, and Recall Process: Operation of the Nominating and Recall Committees,” June 2004.) requirements for confidentiality limit the ability of the NomCom to solicit that information. The process change described in this document allows the NomCom to openly solicit information about nominees who are willing to be considered.
| TOC |
[RFC3777] (Galvin, J., “IAB and IESG Selection, Confirmation, and Recall Process: Operation of the Nominating and Recall Committees,” June 2004.) is the latest in a series of revisions to the NomCom process, and it describes the confidential nature of NomCom deliberations in section 3, "General", bullet 6, which states:
All deliberations and supporting information that relates to specific nominees, candidates, and confirmed candidates are confidential.
The nominating committee and confirming body members will be exposed to confidential information as a result of their deliberations, their interactions with those they consult, and from those who provide requested supporting information. All members and all other participants are expected to handle this information in a manner consistent with its sensitivity.
It is consistent with this rule for current nominating committee members who have served on prior nominating committees to advise the current committee on deliberations and results of the prior committee, as necessary and appropriate.
| TOC |
There are two problems with existing practice - nominee lists aren't as confidential as [RFC3777] (Galvin, J., “IAB and IESG Selection, Confirmation, and Recall Process: Operation of the Nominating and Recall Committees,” June 2004.) would lead the reader to believe, but they aren't visible to the entire IETF community, either.
Since at least 1996, most NomComs have sent out a "short list" of nominees under consideration to a variety of audiences. The target audiences differ from year to year, but have included members of specific leadership bodies, working group chairs in a specific area (for IESG positions), all working group chairs (for IAB and IAOC positions), and all document authors. The combined target audience for all short lists includes multiple hundreds of recipients - recent NomComs have sent out about 1500 requests for short list feedback.
This practice is unavoidable, because most NomCom members will not have personal experience with most nominees for most positions, but it is periodically challenged because it's not explicitly allowed as an exception to the blanket requirement for confidentiality.
In an attempt to maintain the required level of confidentiality, past NomComs have also included "ringers" (as "padding") on the short list - nominees who are NOT under active consideration for a specific position. Since anyone who sees the short list does not know who the ringers are, consciencious IETF participants also provide feedback on nominees who have already declined. This is a waste of precious IETF-participant cycles, and there are widespread reports that strict confidentiality about which candidates are "real", and which are included as "padding", is not successfully maintained in practice.
Even if confidentiality about padding is maintained, the community is aware that some nominees on the short list aren't under active consideration. In some cases, people guess incorrectly that an actual nominee is part of the padding, and don't provide needed feedback to NomCom about a nominee who is actively being considered.
We also note that the practice of publishing a "short list" penalizes IETF participants who aren't members of one of the target audiences being surveyed - they have no way of knowing who is being considered, except for incumbent(s), and have little incentive to provide feedback to NomCom on individuals who might not even be nominees.
| TOC |
NomComs are not required to ask for community input at all, but at the current IETF scale, many NomComs DO request community input, because members do not have personal experience with all nominees for all positions under review.
We assume that asking the larger community for feedback about these nominees is preferable to NomCom members without personal experience simply deferring to the members of the NomCom who DO have personal experience with specific nominees.
We assume that asking for feedback from the entire community is preferable to asking for feedback from large segments of the community, while keeping the rest of the community "in the dark".
| TOC |
In proposing that a nominee list be published as part of NomCom's request for feedback from the community, we considered three possibilities:
Asking for feedback on nominees who are not willing to be considered is a waste of precious IETF-participant cycles, and may make it less likely that NomCom would receive feedback on some nominees who ARE willing to be considered.
Asking for feedback on all nominees who are willing to be considered allows the community to point out specific strengths and weaknesses of all willing nominees, and this feedback should be useful to NomCom in deciding which nominees to seriously consider. It also allows NomCom to receive feedback on nominees who might not appear on a "short list" initially, in the event that a strong nominee is suddenly unwilling or unable to serve.
We also note that the list of willing nominees will include incumbents who are willing to be considered for an additional term.
| TOC |
At the end of the three paragraphs in [RFC3777] (Galvin, J., “IAB and IESG Selection, Confirmation, and Recall Process: Operation of the Nominating and Recall Committees,” June 2004.), section 3, "General", bullet 6, which are currently:
All deliberations and supporting information that relates to specific nominees, candidates, and confirmed candidates are confidential.
The nominating committee and confirming body members will be exposed to confidential information as a result of their deliberations, their interactions with those they consult, and from those who provide requested supporting information. All members and all other participants are expected to handle this information in a manner consistent with its sensitivity.
It is consistent with this rule for current nominating committee members who have served on prior nominating committees to advise the current committee on deliberations and results of the prior committee, as necessary and appropriate.
add the following paragraphs:
The list of nominees willing to be considered for positions under review in the current NomCom cycle is not confidential. The NomCom may publish a list of names of nominees who are willing to be considered for positions under review to the community, in order to obtain feedback from the community on these nominees.
The list of nominees published for a specific position should contain only the names of nominees who are willing to be considered for the position under review.
The NomCom may choose not to include some names in the public list, if this is the right thing to do, in NomCom's opinion.
The NomCom may publish an updated list if the NomCom considers this necessary. For example, the NomCom might publish an updated list if the NomCom identifies errors/omissions in a previously-published version of the public list, or if the NomCom finds it necessary to call for additional nominees, and these nominees indicate a willingness to be considered before NomCom has completed its deliberations.
Nominees may choose to ask people to provide feedback to NomCom, but should not encourage any public statements of support. NomComs should consider nominee-encouraged lobbying and campaigning to be unacceptable behavior,
IETF community members are encouraged to provide feedback on nominees to NomCom, but should not post statements of support/non-support for nominees in any public forum.
| TOC |
This specification describes issues with the current IETF Nominating Committee process ([RFC3777] (Galvin, J., “IAB and IESG Selection, Confirmation, and Recall Process: Operation of the Nominating and Recall Committees,” June 2004.)) and proposes an update to allow the NomCom to solicit feedback from the entire community on nominees under consideration. No security considerations apply.
| TOC |
No IANA actions are requested in this specification.
| TOC |
The editor thanks the following folks who have provided useful observations and guidance on previous versions of this draft: Fred Baker, Ross Callon, Brian Carpenter, Leslie Daigle, Lars Eggert, Robert Elz, Joel Halpern, Bernie Hoeneisen, John Klensin, Barry Leiba, Danny McPherson, S. Moonesamy, and Thomas Narten.
The editor also thanks IETF plenary meeting participants who have provided useful feedback on previous versions of this draft.
| TOC |
| [RFC3777] | Galvin, J., “IAB and IESG Selection, Confirmation, and Recall Process: Operation of the Nominating and Recall Committees,” BCP 10, RFC 3777, June 2004 (TXT). |
| TOC |
This section acknowledges possible concerns about publishing open nominee lists in previous discussions. Thanks to Leslie Daigle for providing this set to the document editor.
One concern is that nominees who are willing to be considered if the nominee list is not published, would not be willing to be considered if the nominee list is published. This reluctance might be cultural, the result of personal pride, or the result of the fear of retribution, for a nominee being considered as a replacement for the nominee's managing Area Director (this concern is usually raised in an IESG context).
Another concern is that publishing the nominee list publicly would lead to "lobbying", public statements supporting nominees on the IETF mailing list, etc.
| TOC |
| Spencer Dawkins (editor) | |
| Huawei Technologies (USA) | |
| Phone: | +1 214 755 3870 |
| Email: | spencer@wonderhamster.org |