Subject: IETF56 Meeting slot for Nomcom WG

From: Avri Doria <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2003 17:35:09 -0500

Hi,

Shortly, draft-ietf-nomcom-rfc2727bis-03.txt will be
available on the ID sites.  I think it covers the
remaining issues.

 >  1.  The "superior candidate" definition was moved to be with its one
        and only use in the document.

 >  2.  The eligibility qualifications for the nominating committee was
        changed to require attendance at 3 out of 5 of the last five
        meetings, to require volunteers to submit identifying contact
        information, and to request that volunteers be familiar with IETF
        processes and procedures.

 >  3.  The method used to select volunteers is now required to produce
        an ordered list of volunteers.

 >  4.  The process for selecting the 10 voting volunteers had several
        clarifications and additional requirements added, including a
        challenge process and the requirement to disallow more than two
        volunteers with the same primary affiliation.

 >  5.  The process for recalling a sitting member of the IAB and IESG
        now requires at least 20 eligible members of the IETF community to
        sign a petition requesting the recall.

I have not yet requested a meeting slot for SF.
Partially because the current draft was not ready
until now, partly because I did not think there
were any open issues that needed to be discussed and
partly because the list has been very quiet of late.
I am hoping, in fact that this version of the draft
is ready for WG last call.

I do have a few hours left for requesting a meeting
slot.  If anyone has an agenda item that they believe
needs a meeting slot, please speak up immediately.

Apologies for waiting until the last minute to make
this request.

a.

---

From: James M Galvin <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2003 23:29:56 -0500 (Eastern Standard Time)

On Mon, 24 Feb 2003, Avri Doria wrote:

    Shortly, draft-ietf-nomcom-rfc2727bis-03.txt will be
    available on the ID sites.

Given the timing and likely delay I have placed a copy of the draft
alongside the archive:

http://lists.elistx.com/archives/ietf-nomcom/draft-ietf-nomcom-rfc2727bis-03.txt

Note that that URL has no spaces or line breaks in it.

Jim

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2003 11:47:36 +0100

Hi,

I'll send some typos and editos direct to Jim, but I did have one
question that might be substantive.

See rule 11 in section 5:

>         Nominating committee members are not eligible to be considered
>         for filling any open position.  They become ineligible as soon
>         as the term of the nominating committee on which they serve
>         officially begins.  They remain ineligible for the duration of
>         that nominating committee's term.

Nomcom N overlaps by about 3 months with Nomcom N+1. Due to this overlap,
is a member of Nomcom N ineligible for nomination by Nomcom N+1? As I read
the timeline, there are probably a few hours or days after the Third IETF
when a member of Nomcom N would become eligible, i.e. after Nomcom N is
dissolved but before nominations close. Is this correct? Whatever the
answer, I think the document should state it.

To put it another way, is it our intention that Nomcom members are
immunized for one year or two years?

  Brian

Avri Doria wrote:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription
> manager: <http://lists.elistx.com/subscribe>

-- 
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Brian E Carpenter 
Distinguished Engineer, Internet Standards & Technology, IBM 
On assignment at the IBM Zurich Laboratory, Switzerland

---

From: Theodore Ts'o <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2003 10:55:31 -0500

> immunized for one year or two years?

I would argue one year was the original intent of the wording; it was
just perhaps a bit too clumsy.  How about the following rewording,
which I believe is clearer and conforms with the original intent?

	Nominating committee members are not eligible to be considered
	for filling any open position by the nominating committee on
	which they serve.  They shall remain ineligible even if they
	are resign or are removed from the nominating committee.

						- Ted

---

From: Eric Rescorla <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2003 09:15:06 -0800

> immunized for one year or two years?
Unless we're changing existing practice, it must be one year.

Otherwise, the liasons could not be nominated the following
term, making nomcom liason a ticket out of the IESG/IAB.

Or have I missed something?
-Ekr

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2003 09:17:25 +0100

> Or have I missed something?

I completely agree with you and Ted. But I think this needs an extra
sentence to clarify it, such as:

  Although each nominating committee's term overlaps with the 
  following nominating committee's activity, the timeline is such
  that members of a given committee are eligible for nomination
  by the following committee, if not otherwise disqualified. 

(and maybe a related note is needed in the timeline Appendix).

    Brian