Movatterモバイル変換

Network Working Group                                    S. Dawkins, Ed.Request for Comments: 5680                                  Huawei (USA)BCP: 10                                                     October 2009Updates:3777Category: Best Current PracticeThe Nominating Committee Process: Open Disclosure of Willing NomineesAbstract   This document updatesRFC 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 toBCP 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 2009Table of Contents1. Introduction ....................................................22. Current Rules on Confidentiality ................................23. Problems with Existing Rules ....................................34. Asking the Entire Community for Feedback ........................45. Disclosing a Nominee List .......................................46. Updated Text fromRFC 3777 ......................................57. Security Considerations .........................................68. Acknowledgements ................................................69. Normative References ............................................6Appendix A.  Concerns about Open Nominee Lists .....................61.  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 inSection 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 20094.  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 20096.  Updated Text fromRFC 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 2009Author's Address   Spencer Dawkins (editor)   Huawei Technologies (USA)   Phone: +1 214 755 3870   EMail: spencer@wonderhamster.orgDawkins                  Best Current Practice                  [Page 7]