Subject: Now there seems to be lack of communicaiton here...

From: "Richard Shockey" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2006 21:31:29 -0400

This seems to be on the IETF NOMCOM web page but I do not see it in the
[email-masked] archives.

I suggest that given the unique importance of this NOMCOM cycle that a
fuller explanation is in order.

First .. the instant there was a problem the IETF community should have been
notified in full on this list.

Second ...a complete explanation of why this go screwed up should have been
posted to the community.

Third .. the IETF community AS A WHOLE should have been consulted as to
possible remedies to this "problem" etc. Consultations to the IESG and IAB
are not sufficient on matters of such gravity.

*********************
From: Andrew Lange <[email-masked]>
To: IETF Announcement
Date: August 30, 2006
Subject: NomCom 2006/07: Selection Process Reset

A few members of the community have expressed concern over two issues with
the selection process for this year's NomCom.

First: The list of volunteers was published later than recommended by RFC
3777.  This happened because, after the nominations period closed, there
was some dispute on the eligibility of a number of NomCom volunteers. 
They were not on the secretariat's list, but they had attended the
requisite number of IETF's.  I chose to provide the secretariat some time
to look into their eligibility because I was concerned about (in no
particular order):

1) Disenfranchisement.  I wanted to be sure that every voice that was
willing to be heard, was heard.  I didn't want an administrative snafu to
prevent someone who wanted to from serving.

2) Representation.  In order to ensure that the NomCom is representative
of the community we need the largest possible body of eligible
individuals.

I believe that these are fundamental to the entire process of the IETF
and NomCom.

This resulted in the list being sent to the secretariat later than I
would have liked, and the message then got hung up in the secretariat's
queue.

The selection is still deterministic, because the list ordering algorithm
used (alpha by first name) is deterministic.  However, since the list was
published late, the appearance is not ideal.

Second:  A sitting member of the IAB's name appeared on the candidate
list.  According to 3777, section 15, sitting IAB, IESG and ISOC members
are not eligible to serve on the Nomcom.  This was an oversight on my
part.  Ordering in the list does matter for the selection process.
Although this person was not selected to serve, and the harm done is
minimal, it is important that the IETF follow our own processes as closely
as possible.

For these reasons, and after consultation with members of the IAB, IESG
and ISOC, I have decided that to remove any doubt from the proceedings we
must re-run the selection algorithm with new seed information.

This is unfair to the people who volunteered for NomCom and are the
backbone of the process.  These people rightfully believed that they were
or were not selected, and everyone selected was preparing to serve.  To
the volunteers:  Thank you for volunteering, for your patience and
understanding.  I apologize for any inconvenience this reset may cause.

In order to close this issue quickly, the same stocks and procedure will
be used as last time, but the trading date will be drawn from the
September 1, 2006 Wall Street Journal which reports the the sales figures
from the previous trading day - August 31, 2006.  The list we will use is
the same as before, but with the IAB member's name removed.  The list will
be sent in a separate mail.

Thank you.

Andrew

Richard Shockey
Director, Member of the Technical Staff
NeuStar
46000 Center Oak Plaza - Sterling, VA 20166
sip:rshockey(at)iptel.org 
sip:5651(at)neustarlab.biz
PSTN Office +1 571.434.5651 
PSTN Mobile: +1 703.593.2683
<mailto:richard(at)shockey.us> 
<mailto:richard.shockey(at)neustar.biz>

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

---

From: Michael StJohns <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2006 00:33:19 -0400

One of the things missing from this years list of volunteers is their 
association.  That's one of the inputs into the selection algorithm 
as the number of voting members from a particular association is 
limited to two. I'd ask that the Nomcom chair include this in the 
list of volunteers.

Also, I note that last year there were actually 4 members (2 voting 
and 2 others) from one particular organization.  I'd suggest that 
this year the liasons NOT be selected from any organization already 
represented by a voting member.

Later, Mike

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2006 09:29:19 +0200

> notified in full on this list.

This message is on its way to the ietf-announce list; that takes time
with several thousand subscribers. That is the appropriate list, not
this one.

> Second ...a complete explanation of why this go screwed up should have been

The message seems to give a complete explanation. Oversights happen. We are
a volunteer community, and any of us can overlook something, any time.

> are not sufficient on matters of such gravity.

Actually the custodian of the process is, as I read RFC 3777, the ISOC
President. There is a formal dispute procedure defined in RFC 3777,
but Andrew took remedial action before anyone invoked that. Since
remedial action has been taken, I don't see an issue at this time.

     Brian

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2006 09:24:22 +0200

Mike,

As it happens the liaisons were both chosen some time ago,
by definition with no knowledge of the chosen volunteers.

We are not going to change the rules on the fly, are we?

     Brian

Michael StJohns wrote:
> association.  That's one of the inputs into the selection algorithm as 
> the number of voting members from a particular association is limited to 
> two. I'd ask that the Nomcom chair include this in the list of volunteers.
> 
> Also, I note that last year there were actually 4 members (2 voting and 
> 2 others) from one particular organization.  I'd suggest that this year 
> the liasons NOT be selected from any organization already represented by 
> a voting member.
> 
> Later, Mike
> 
> 
>

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2006 09:29:19 +0200

Brian

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2006 09:24:22 +0200

Mike,

     Brian

---

From: "Richard Shockey" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2006 10:04:40 -0400

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Brian E Carpenter [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Thursday, August 31, 2006 3:29 AM
> To: [email-masked]
> Cc: 'IETF-Discussion'
> Subject: Re: Now there seems to be lack of communicaiton here...
> 
> Richard Shockey wrote:
> >
> >
> > First .. the instant there was a problem the IETF community should have
> been notified in full on this list.
> 

Brian what in the world are you thinking? Given that the issue involved here
is the integrity of the NOMCOM process, it deserves no more notification
than a posting on the announce list?

> 
> >
> > Second ...a complete explanation of why this go screwed up should have
> been posted to the community.
> 
> The message seems to give a complete explanation. Oversights happen. We
> are a volunteer community, and any of us can overlook something, any time.

'Seems' is a very mild word here. I do not believe there is any malice
involved here only a severe lack of communication and consultation on an
issue that essentially disqualifies the entire elector slate.

> > possible remedies to this "problem" etc. Consultations to the IESG and
> IAB > are not sufficient on matters of such gravity.
> 

Well I do. The suggestion that the selection process be respun is IMHO very
very serious and the incorrect solution here. 

Why respin the entire list when it would have been just as easy to select
the next elector on the list?

IMHO options here should have been made clear before the decision was
ultimately made. I don't dispute the NOMCOM's right to make the decision
only that on a matter of such gravity input come from the community at
large.

This entire event has been very badly handled Brian.

---

From: Ted Hardie <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2006 07:55:03 -0700

>must re-run the selection algorithm with new seed information.

Speaking with my IESG hat on, the IESG as a whole was not consulted.
The first I heard of this was late last night, post-decision, and I understand
that the same is true of at least David, Lars, and Cullen.  There was no
discussion of this by the IESG prior to this decision having been taken.
Whoever Andrew consulted may serve on the IESG, but the IESG was
not brought in to discuss this and it had no role in making this decision.

Speaking with my personal hat on, I am glad that the IESG was not
consulted. Having the IESG have much influence on a decision like
could be worrying in other contexts.  I am sorry, however, that Andrew
did not put the problem and his proposed course of action to the community
for a comment period, so that the whole IETF community would know
and could discuss that the issue had come up and what the resolution
would be.  Since this is the first time (to my knowledge, anyway) this
has happened, I assume the next NomCom chair to have to face this
will know that some folks prefer this type of decision to have a "Last Call"
period.
		regards,
				Ted Hardie

---

From: "todd glassey" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2006 07:59:13 -0700

Hey Brian - what say - I am no longer the top poster eh?

Todd

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Brian E Carpenter" <[email-masked]>
To: "Michael StJohns" <[email-masked]>
Cc: "'IETF-Discussion'" <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>
Sent: Thursday, August 31, 2006 12:24 AM
Subject: Re: Now there seems to be lack of communicaiton here...

> >> IAB

---

From: Leslie Daigle <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2006 12:01:37 -0400

I think this has already been said in this thread, but just
to be very clear on one point:

    Andrew's message does read as if the IAB & IESG were somehow
    consulted.  They were not.

Brian & I were on the cc list of one complaint; we certainly
agreed the situation needed addressing.  No doubt that
motivated Andrew's text.  I will note, however, that the ultimate
decision of whether, and certainly the choice of *how*,
was up to Lynn and/or Andrew by a means of their own
devising.

Leslie.

---

From: James Galvin <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2006 09:41:09 -0400

-- On Wednesday, August 30, 2006 9:31 PM -0400 Richard Shockey 
<[email-masked]> wrote regarding Now there seems to be lack of 
communicaiton here... --

> First .. the instant there was a problem the IETF community
> should have been notified in full on this list.

Perhaps, in this particular case, but in general the NOMCOM 
operates under the veil of confidentiality.  Historically that veil 
has covered most everything about the NOMCOM (in spite of the 
"leakage"), and I would not expect that to change any time soon.

Personally I am not particularly fond of this aspect of our NOMCOM. 
I think the veil of confidentiality should be much more constrained 
but that has not been the community consensus over the years.

> Third .. the IETF community AS A WHOLE should have been consulted
> as to possible remedies to this "problem" etc. Consultations to
> the IESG and IAB are not sufficient on matters of such gravity.

Section 4 Nominating Committee Selection, Item 16 states:

       It must be possible to repeat the selection method, either
       through iteration or by restarting in such a way as to remain
       fair and unbiased.  This is necessary to replace selected
       volunteers should they become unavailable after selection.

The fact that Andrew chose to restart the process is within the 
rules.

Also, since there is no enumeration of what "become unavailable" 
means, it would have been within the rules to simply iterate the 
selection process if an oversight or anomaly or even a challenge 
had been determined after the selection.

Consulting with the IAB and IESG is not called out as an option in 
the document but neither is consulting with the IETF community.

In fact, (speaking as Editor of the document) the rules lean 
towards the Chair simply conducting the selection process to the 
best of his or her ability, while keeping the community informed. 
No consultation necessary except where explicitly stated.  The 
primary reason for this is that there is a schedule to keep.

Jim

---

From: "todd glassey" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2006 10:40:21 -0700

James  I also agree with Donald's logic - 

So then what happens when the selection process is restarted and the
ramdomizer is used again - say the second time it selects six of the same
candidates and the rest are different out of a pool of 20 or 30 probably.
How is that fair to those selected in the original pick who now loses their
potential seat to the process.

Todd Glassey

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2006 10:46:40 -0700

James Galvin wrote:
> Perhaps, in this particular case, but in general the NOMCOM operates 
> under the veil of confidentiality. 

Specifically, the process of selecting the nomcom does *not*.

  Historically that veil has covered
> most everything about the NOMCOM (in spite of the "leakage"), and I 
> would not expect that to change any time soon.

The process of selecting the nomcom has been fully public for a very 
long time.

d/
-- 

   Dave Crocker
   Brandenburg InternetWorking
   bbiw.net

---

From: James Galvin <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2006 14:04:20 -0400

-- On Thursday, August 31, 2006 10:46 AM -0700 Dave Crocker 
<[email-masked]> wrote regarding Re: Now there seems to be lack 
of communicaiton here... --

> > operates  under the veil of confidentiality.
>
> > most everything about the NOMCOM (in spite of the "leakage"),
> > and I  would not expect that to change any time soon.
>
> The process of selecting the nomcom has been fully public for a
> very long time.

Most of the random selection process has been public for a long 
time, because of the requirement for it to be verifiable by third 
parties.  This just means that enough of it is public to ensure it 
can be verified.  But there is a part of the process that is not 
public: the actual selection of eligible volunteers.

I have not been party to any discussions of this issue outside this 
list, but as I understand it the issue(s) that surfaced was(were) 
related to that part of the process.

Personally, I think that restarting the process was overkill, but 
then it depends on how you judge "fair and unbiased", which is the 
principal requirement in RFC3777.  We are dependent on the Chair to 
"do the right thing."  The document says that in so many words.

So, as editor of the document, I just want to point out that I 
believe that what transpired was allowed under the rules.  If we, 
as a community, don't like what transpired, then we need to change 
the rules.

Jim

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2006 11:11:51 -0700

James Galvin wrote:
>   But there is a part of the process that is not public: the 
> actual selection of eligible volunteers.

1) The criteria are public.  2) The result is public, with the intention 
of time for review.  I'm not sure how the internals of going from 1 to 2 
could be made public and still function.  Since the criteria are 
reasonably objective, I'm having trouble seeing how "transparency" on 
the "decision" process is meaningful.

> So, as editor of the document, I just want to point out that I believe 
> that what transpired was allowed under the rules.  If we, as a 
> community, don't like what transpired, then we need to change the rules.

At base, I suspect this demonstrates the problem with our being too 
rule-oriented, and not enough community oriented. It loses sight of the 
underpinnings of comfort and legitimacy, and that is community review 
and approval when a situation does -- or reasonably might -- entail the 
unknown or, at least, controversy.

d/
-- 

   Dave Crocker

---

From: Stewart Bryant <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2006 19:09:36 +0100

First I should say that being chair of Nomcom when an innocent
mistake like this happens must be a nightmare with every possible
action being subject to criticism. Andrew therefore has a completely
thankless task in resolving this, and I will support what ever he
decides to do.

I cannot see how the presence of the an ineligible candidate that was
not selected biased* the results, and I think that the result should
have stood - indeed RFC3777 seems to say that it should stand.
I am however concerned that the re-run decision, and now
the decision about whether we continue with the re-run or not,
opens the door to human intervention in a way that the RFC
was supposed to design out.

Given where we are, perhaps the way forward is to throw a two
sided dice - using our usual method. If the answer is 0 we continue
with the previous - valid selection - if the answer is 1 we rerun
the selection. That way no human can determine the outcome
of this ongoing selection process.

- Stewart

* Yes - it changed the result - but the important thing is that it will not
have biased it because of the random nature of the selection from
the pool.

---

From: James Galvin <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2006 14:13:09 -0400

-- On Thursday, August 31, 2006 10:40 AM -0700 todd glassey 
<[email-masked]> wrote regarding Re: Now there seems to be 
lack of communicaiton here... --

> So then what happens when the selection process is restarted and
> the ramdomizer is used again - say the second time it selects six
> of the same candidates and the rest are different out of a pool
> of 20 or 30 probably. How is that fair to those selected in the
> original pick who now loses their potential seat to the process.

I'll only say that RFC3777 defines what it means by "fair and 
unbiased," and I believe that what transpired was within that 
definition.  Specifically, a process is "fair" if any eligible 
volunteer is equally likely to be selected.

Even a restart is allowed by the rules.

Now, was a restart the best choice given the issue at hand? 
Personally I think there were other good choices that would have 
served the purpose.  Even so, it is the Chair's job to make that 
decision and he obviously saw the situation differently.

Do I want to change the rules to prevent a restart in the future? 
Not just yet, but I'm following the discussion and perhaps I'll 
change my mind.

Jim

---

From: "todd glassey" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2006 11:23:42 -0700

A restart that selected other candidates would not be unbiased.

Todd Glassey
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "James Galvin" <[email-masked]>
To: "todd glassey" <[email-masked]>
Cc: "'IETF-Discussion'" <[email-masked]>
Sent: Thursday, August 31, 2006 11:13 AM
Subject: Re: Now there seems to be lack of communicaiton here...

> Not just yet, but I'm following the discussion and peFrom [email-masked] Thu Aug 31 14:27:03 2006
From: "todd glassey" <[email-masked]>
To: "James Galvin" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2006 11:23:42 -0700
Cc: 'IETF-Discussion' <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Now there seems to be lack of communicaiton here...

A restart that selected other candidates would not be unbiased.

Todd Glassey