From 4bfd864f10b68b71482b35c818559068ef8d5797 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Thomas Voss Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2024 20:54:24 +0100 Subject: doc: Add RFC documents --- doc/rfc/rfc5078.txt | 507 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 507 insertions(+) create mode 100644 doc/rfc/rfc5078.txt (limited to 'doc/rfc/rfc5078.txt') diff --git a/doc/rfc/rfc5078.txt b/doc/rfc/rfc5078.txt new file mode 100644 index 0000000..dedd533 --- /dev/null +++ b/doc/rfc/rfc5078.txt @@ -0,0 +1,507 @@ + + + + + + +Network Working Group S. Dawkins +Request for Comments: 5078 Huawei (USA) +Updates: 3777 October 2007 +Category: Informational + + + IAB and IESG Selection, Confirmation, and Recall Process: + Revision of the Nominating and Recall Committees Timeline + +Status of This Memo + + This memo provides information for the Internet community. It does + not specify an Internet standard of any kind. Distribution of this + memo is unlimited. + +Abstract + + RFC 3777 defines the Nominations and Recall Committee's (NomCom's) + operation, and includes a sample timeline for major steps in the + NomCom process that meets the minimum normative requirements for the + process. Recent NomComs have been scheduling based on the sample + timeline, and the chairs of the last three NomComs -- Danny McPherson + (2004-2005), Ralph Droms (2005-2006), and Andrew Lange (2006-2007) -- + have all reported that this timeline is very aggressive and suggested + starting earlier. This document restructures the sample timeline, + but makes no normative process changes. + +Table of Contents + + 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 + 2. The Problem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 + 3. Interaction with IETF Face-to-Face Meeting Schedule . . . . . . 3 + 4. Proposed Solution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 + 5. Sample Timeline for 2008-2009 NomCom Schedule . . . . . . . . . 4 + 6. Some Observations from the 2007-2008 NomCom Experience . . . . 6 + 7. Out-of-Scope Suggestions Requiring Normative Text Changes . . . 6 + 8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 + 9. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 + 10. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 + + + + + + + + + + + + +Dawkins Informational [Page 1] + +RFC 5078 NomCom Starting Earlier October 2007 + + +1. Introduction + + RFC 3777 ([RFC3777]) is a complete specification of the process by + which members of the IAB and IESG are selected, confirmed, and + recalled as of the date of its approval. [RFC3777] includes + normative requirements for timing allowed for the various steps, and + also includes an informative appendix, Appendix B, that contains a + timeline based on the normative text. + + The normative time requirements in [RFC3777] are end-of-task, so + adjusting the informative timeline to get an earlier start does not + require changes to the normative text in [RFC3777]. + + In IETF 68, IETF 65, and IETF 62 plenary reports, NomCom chairs + suggested starting the NomCom cycle earlier. This document describes + a timeline that meets this need, replacing RFC 3777, Appendix B, and + makes no other changes to [RFC3777]. + +2. The Problem + + There are several reasons that have been cited for the schedule + pressures reported by recent NomComs. + + o A few common practices are not accounted for in the Appendix B + timeline [RFC3777]. For example, it is common to allow a week for + notifying unsuccessful nominees before the formal announcement is + made. This is not included in the timeline. + + o Some tasks just seem to take longer than the minimum interval. + For example, a public "call for volunteers" must be open for 30 + days, but the list of voting NomCom participants probably isn't + announced at midnight on the 30th day. Anecdotal evidence is that + allowing about 6 weeks is more consistent with recent experience. + + o The NomCom, and the community it serves, tends to celebrate a + variety of holidays between the third IETF and the first IETF of + the next year, so people may be out of the office, may wait to + respond, etc. + + o The Appendix B timeline does not provide flexibility in case of + problems. For example, the NomCom chair "reset" the random + selection of volunteers for the 2006-2007 NomCom, requiring + another seven-day delay for the announcement of the date of random + selection. + + All of these reasons can be accommodated by simply starting earlier + than is absolutely required. + + + + +Dawkins Informational [Page 2] + +RFC 5078 NomCom Starting Earlier October 2007 + + +3. Interaction with IETF Face-to-Face Meeting Schedule + + In addition to these reasons for schedule pressure, it's worth noting + that the NomCom schedule and the IETF face-to-face meeting cycle + don't complement each other. + + o When the NomCom volunteers are selected after the second IETF, + they don't have an opportunity to meet face-to-face and "get + organized" until the third IETF, when they should be winding up + their deliberations. This missed opportunity forces them to use + teleconferences and other less efficient means of communications + to get organized. + + o The NomCom volunteers don't have a chance to conduct interviews + with the community, or with nominees, until the third IETF, during + the height of the NomCom effort. If the NomCom effort took place + before the third IETF, the NomCom could work on difficult + nominations, and meet face-to-face with nominees under + consideration. + + o If the NomCom is able to start interviews during the second IETF + meeting, starting earlier than is absolutely required may also + help NomCom be more effective. + +4. Proposed Solution + + The high-level description of the proposal is, of course, "start + earlier", but more precision would be helpful. + + A sample, hypothetical timeline that meets these guidelines is shown + in Section 5. Please note that, like Appendix B in [RFC3777], this + timeline is not normative, but it meets the normative requirements + stated in [RFC3777]. + + Other timelines are certainly possible, including timelines that + allow the NomCom to report its results more than one month before the + first IETF, where the slate of nominees is announced. Finishing + early may be a good thing. + + It's worth noting that the first step in the timeline is "ISOC + president appoints NomCom chair". This doesn't happen as an IETF + responsibility, but the reality is that the ISOC president needs to + identify NomCom chair candidates around the time of the first IETF; + she needs to have a shortlist 3 or 4 weeks after the first IETF. + This document suggests (but does not add a normative requirement to + [RFC3777]) that the outgoing NomCom Chair should verify that this + process is triggered during the first IETF. + + + + +Dawkins Informational [Page 3] + +RFC 5078 NomCom Starting Earlier October 2007 + + + 1. One week is allowed for the NomCom chair to publish milestones. + + 2. Six weeks are allowed for solicitation of NomCom participants. + + 3. One week is allowed for confirmation of the selection of voting + members -- to allow at least some time for resolution if there is + a problem. + + 4. The recommended time for NomCom self-organization is increased to + six weeks. + + 5. One week is allowed for NomCom establishing milestones. + + 6. In the sample timeline (Table 1), an additional five weeks is + allowed for the nominating bodies to select candidates. + + 7. The timeline is adjusted to allow one week at the end of the + process for notification of unsuccessful candidates. + + This significantly increases the amount of time available for NomCom + to select candidates while still meeting the normative requirements + of [RFC3777]. + +5. Sample Timeline for 2008-2009 NomCom Schedule + + The following table shows a sample timeline for the 2008-2009 NomCom + schedule, based on the IETF dates for the second IETF (72nd IETF, + held July 27 - August 1, 2008), third IETF (73rd IETF, held November + 16-21, 2008), and first IETF (74 IETF, held March 22-27, 2009). + + Note that the duration of each milestone step is adjusted as + necessary for each NomCom, since the scheduled dates for IETF + meetings vary from year to year. This timeline allows the NomCom to + begin self organizing at the Second IETF (this is what "on time") + means in the table). + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +Dawkins Informational [Page 4] + +RFC 5078 NomCom Starting Earlier October 2007 + + + +------------+-----------------+----------+--------------+----------+ + | RFC 3777 | What happens | new | start date | old | + | Appendix B | | duration | (YYYY/MM/DD) | duration | + | reference | | (weeks) | | (weeks) | + +------------+-----------------+----------+--------------+----------+ + | 1 | ISOC president | 0 | 2008/05/25 | 0 | + | | appoints NomCom | | | | + | | chair | | | | + | 2 | NomCom chair | 1 | 2008/05/25 | 0 | + | | publishes | | | | + | | milestones | | | | + | 3 | Solicitation of | 6 | 2008/06/01 | 30 days | + | | NomCom | | | | + | | participants | | | | + | 4 | Announce date | 1 | 2008/07/13 | 1 | + | | of random | | | | + | | selection | | | | + | 5 | Announce NomCom | 1 | 2008/07/20 | 1 | + | | membership, | | | | + | | challenge | | | | + | | period | | | | + | 6 | Verify NomCom | 0 | 2008/07/27 | 0 | + | | membership | | | | + | | during | | | | + | | challenge | | | | + | | period | | | | + | 7 | Confirm NomCom | 1 | 2008/07/27 | 0 | + | | membership | | | | + | 8 | NomCom self | 6 | 2008/08/03 | 4 | + | | organizes (on | | | | + | | time) | | | | + | 9 | END | 0 | 2008/09/14 | 0 | + | | organization, | | | | + | | BEGIN selection | | | | + | 10 | NomCom | 1 | 2008/09/14 | 0 | + | | establishes | | | | + | | milestones | | | | + | 11 | Nominating | 17 | 2008/09/21 | 12 | + | | bodies select | | | | + | | candidates | | | | + | 12 | END selection, | 0 | 2009/01/18 | 0 | + | | BEGIN | | | | + | | confirmation of | | | | + | | candidates | | | | + | 13 | Present slate | 0 | 2009/01/18 | 0 | + | | of candidates | | | | + | | to confirming | | | | + | | bodies | | | | + + + +Dawkins Informational [Page 5] + +RFC 5078 NomCom Starting Earlier October 2007 + + + | 14 | Confirming | 4 | 2009/01/18 | 4 | + | | bodies accept | | | | + | | or reject | | | | + | (added | Notify | 1 | 2009/02/15 | | + | step) | unsuccessful | | | | + | | nominees | | | | + | 15 | Slate announced | 4 | 2009/02/22 | 4 | + | | 1 month before | | | | + | | 1st IETF | | | | + | | 1st IETF | | 2009/03/22 | | + +------------+-----------------+----------+--------------+----------+ + + New Step 1 Date: 2008/05/25, Old Step 1 Date: 2008/08/29 + + Table 1 + +6. Some Observations from the 2007-2008 NomCom Experience + + Since the timeline described in this specification makes no normative + changes to [RFC3777], the 2007-2008 NomCom process started using the + new timeline to gain experience and shake out unexpected + consequences. We discovered the following things: + + 1. It is worth pointing out that the [RFC3777] requirement for + eligibility, "Members of the IETF community must have attended at + least 3 of the last 5 IETF meetings in order to volunteer.", is + affected when the NomCom chair issues an earlier call for + volunteers. For example, using the 2008-2009 NomCom example in + the doc: under the old schedule, a prospective member would need + to have attended three of IETF meetings 68-72. Under the new + schedule, that becomes three of IETF meetings 67-71. + + 2. It's worth noting that when NomCom uses the earlier timeline, + incumbents under review who were appointed to one-year terms have + only one IETF meeting cycle to establish a track record before + NomCom begins considering whether they should be retained. This + situation is rare but not unknown. The recent split of the RAI + area out of TSV created two one-year terms (one in RAI, and one + in TSV), and this can also happens if an IESG or IAB member + resigns with more than one year remaining in the member's term. + +7. Out-of-Scope Suggestions Requiring Normative Text Changes + + While there are very few avoidable serialized delays in [RFC3777], we + note that the minimum 30-day delay for volunteers is serialized after + the NomCom chair is named. This delay accounts for more than half + the elapsed time between the NomCom chair being named and the NomCom + itself forming. If a future normative revision to [RFC3777] changed + + + +Dawkins Informational [Page 6] + +RFC 5078 NomCom Starting Earlier October 2007 + + + the mechanics for this call for volunteers, this call could be issued + while the NomCom chair is still being selected. This would allow the + new NomCom chair to begin work by announcing the date of random + selection, instead of just waiting for the volunteers to volunteer. + + One possible trigger would be to have the outgoing NomCom chair issue + the call for volunteers on behalf of the successor NomCom chair, who + may not yet be identified, at the first IETF meeting each year. + +8. Security Considerations + + The NomCom timeline changes suggested in this document do not + directly affect the security of the Internet. + +9. Acknowledgements + + This draft is based on conversations with the chairs of the last + three NomComs: Danny McPherson (2004-2005), Ralph Droms (2005-2006), + and Andrew Lange (2006-2007), and on their corresponding plenary + NomCom Report presentations at IETF 62, IETF 65, and IETF 68, + respectively. + + The 2007 IESG discussed Andrew Lange's report at their face-to-face + retreat and requested a proposal that adjusted the informative + timeline with no normative changes. + + Thanks to Russ Housley, current General Area director, for reviewing + an early version of this draft. + + Thanks to Brian Carpenter, who pointed out that the IETF NomCom + portion of the timeline depends on the ISOC president appointing the + NomCom chair soon after the first IETF ("NomCom chairs don't appear + magically"), and provided a suggestion for ensuring that this happens + in a timeframe that allows NomCom to begin self organizing at the + Second IETF meeting each year. + + Thanks to Sam Weiler, who pointed out the shift in meeting attendance + requirements described in Section 6. + + We should also thank the editors of previous NomCom procedures for + developing a specification that we could "speed up" without changing + normative text. + +10. 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. + + + +Dawkins Informational [Page 7] + +RFC 5078 NomCom Starting Earlier October 2007 + + +Author's Address + + Spencer Dawkins + Huawei Technologies (USA) + 1547 Rivercrest Blvd. + Allen, TX 75002 + USA + + Phone: +1 469 229 5397 + EMail: spencer@mcsr-labs.org + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +Dawkins Informational [Page 8] + +RFC 5078 NomCom Starting Earlier October 2007 + + +Full Copyright Statement + + Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2007). + + This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions + contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors + retain all their rights. + + This document and the information contained herein are provided on an + "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS + OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY, THE IETF TRUST AND + THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS + OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF + THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED + WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. + +Intellectual Property + + The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any + Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to + pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in + this document or the extent to which any license under such rights + might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has + made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information + on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be + found in BCP 78 and BCP 79. + + Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any + assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an + attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of + such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this + specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at + http://www.ietf.org/ipr. + + The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any + copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary + rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement + this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at + ietf-ipr@ietf.org. + + + + + + + + + + + + +Dawkins Informational [Page 9] + -- cgit v1.2.3