💾 Archived View for radia.bortzmeyer.org › rfc-mirror › rfc5680.txt captured on 2024-05-10 at 16:25:45.
⬅️ Previous capture (2023-06-14)
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Network Working Group S. Dawkins, Ed.
Request for Comments: 5680 Huawei (USA)
BCP: 10 October 2009
Updates: 3777
Category: Best Current Practice
The Nominating Committee Process: Open Disclosure of Willing Nominees
Abstract
This document updates RFC 3777, Section 3, Bullet 6 to allow a
Nominating and Recall Committee to disclose the list of nominees who
are willing to be considered to serve in positions the committee is
responsible for filling.
Status of This Memo
This document specifies an Internet Best Current Practices for the
Internet Community, and requests discussion and suggestions for
improvements. Distribution of this memo is unlimited.
Copyright Notice
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
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the BSD License.
Dawkins Best Current Practice [Page 1]
RFC 5680 NomCom Issues October 2009
Table of Contents
1. Introduction ....................................................2
2. Current Rules on Confidentiality ................................2
3. Problems with Existing Rules ....................................3
4. Asking the Entire Community for Feedback ........................4
5. Disclosing a Nominee List .......................................4
6. Updated Text from RFC 3777 ......................................5
7. Security Considerations .........................................6
8. Acknowledgements ................................................6
9. Normative References ............................................6
Appendix A. Concerns about Open Nominee Lists .....................6
1. Introduction
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] 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] 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.
2. Current Rules on Confidentiality
[RFC3777] 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.
Dawkins Best Current Practice [Page 2]
RFC 5680 NomCom Issues October 2009
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.
3. Problems with Existing Rules
There are two problems with existing practice -- nominee lists aren't
as confidential as [RFC3777] 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 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, conscientious 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 have guessed incorrectly that
an actual nominee is part of the padding, and didn't provide needed
feedback to the NomCom about a nominee who was actively being
considered.
We also note that the practice of disclosing 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 the NomCom on individuals who might not even be
nominees.
Dawkins Best Current Practice [Page 3]
RFC 5680 NomCom Issues October 2009
4. Asking the Entire Community for Feedback
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".
5. Disclosing a Nominee List
In proposing that a nominee list be disclosed as part of the NomCom's
request for feedback from the community, we considered three
possibilities:
1. Asking for feedback on all nominees, whether or not they are
willing to be considered.
2. Asking for feedback on all nominees who are willing to be
considered.
3. Asking for feedback on the nominees that the NomCom is seriously
considering (the "short list").
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 the 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 the
NomCom in deciding which nominees to seriously consider. It also
allows the 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.
Dawkins Best Current Practice [Page 4]
RFC 5680 NomCom Issues October 2009
6. Updated Text from RFC 3777
At the end of the three paragraphs in [RFC3777], 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 disclose 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 disclosed 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 disclosed
list, at their discretion.
The NomCom may disclose an updated list, at their discretion. For
example, the NomCom might disclose an updated list if the NomCom
identifies errors/omissions in a previously disclosed version of
the disclosed list, or if the NomCom finds it necessary to call
for additional nominees, and these nominees indicate a willingness
to be considered before the NomCom has completed its
deliberations.
Nominees may choose to ask people to provide feedback to the
NomCom, but should not encourage any public statements of support.
NomComs should consider nominee-encouraged lobbying and
campaigning to be unacceptable behavior.
Dawkins Best Current Practice [Page 5]
RFC 5680 NomCom Issues October 2009
IETF community members are encouraged to provide feedback on
nominees to the NomCom, but should not post statements of support/
non-support for nominees in any public forum.
7. Security Considerations
This specification describes issues with the current IETF Nominating
Committee process ([RFC3777]) and proposes an update to allow the
NomCom to solicit feedback from the entire community on nominees
under consideration. No security considerations apply.
8. Acknowledgements
The editor thanks the following folks who have provided useful
observations and guidance on previous versions of this document: 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 document.
9. Normative References
[RFC3777] Galvin, J., "IAB and IESG Selection, Confirmation, and
Recall Process: Operation of the Nominating and Recall
Committees", BCP 10, RFC 3777, June 2004.
Appendix A. Concerns about Open Nominee Lists
This section acknowledges possible concerns about disclosing open
nominee lists in previous NomCom-related discussions. Thanks to
Leslie Daigle for providing this set of concerns to the document
editor.
One concern is that nominees who are willing to be considered if the
nominee list is not disclosed would not be willing to be considered
if the nominee list is disclosed. 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.
Dawkins Best Current Practice [Page 6]
RFC 5680 NomCom Issues October 2009
Author's Address
Spencer Dawkins (editor)
Huawei Technologies (USA)
Phone: +1 214 755 3870
EMail: spencer@wonderhamster.org
Dawkins Best Current Practice [Page 7]