doc: Add RFC documents

1 files changed, 395 insertions, 0 deletions

diff --git a/doc/rfc/rfc5680.txt b/doc/rfc/rfc5680.txt
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..38b0dbc
--- /dev/null
+++ b/doc/rfc/rfc5680.txt
@@ -0,0 +1,395 @@
+
+
+
+
+
+
+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]
+