Internet DRAFT - draft-klensin-nomcom-term
draft-klensin-nomcom-term
Network Working Group J. Klensin
Internet-Draft October 22, 2021
Intended status: Best Current Practice
Expires: April 25, 2022
Terms of Appointments for Nomcom-selected IETF Leadership Positions
draft-klensin-nomcom-term-02
Abstract
A consensus is emerging in the IETF that very long tenure in
leadership roles is not in the best interests of the community.
While, in theory, that advice could simply be given to the Nomcom,
there is reason to believe that a different model for consideration
of renewal or replacement for members of the leadership would be more
efficient for the Nomcom and would impose less hardship on incumbents
and the community. This document outlines that alternate method.
Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on April 25, 2022.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2021 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
(https://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
Klensin Expires April 25, 2022 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Nomcom and Terms of Office October 2021
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1.1. Mailing List . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. The Review and Clean Nomination Model . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.1. Phase 1: Review of Incumbents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.2. Phase 2: Nomination and Selection of New Candidates . . . 5
2.3. Revised schedule . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3. Previous Discussion Points . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.1. IESG-only, or all Nomcom appointments? . . . . . . . . . 6
3.2. Justification for third terms? . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.3. Guidance, or hard limit on service length? . . . . . . . 6
4. Internationalization Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
6. Security considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
7. Contributor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
8. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
9. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Appendix A. Change Log . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
A.1. Changes from draft-klensin-Nomcom-term-01 (2006-06-24)
to -03 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
1. Introduction
Context and Note in Draft: This Internet-Draft is a small update of a
version with the same name that was last posted and discussed in
2006. The problems it identified still exist in 2021 and the
proposed solution still seems relevant. However, the original was
written more as a discussion piece than as a formal proposal and this
revision continues in that form. Should the idea get traction, much
of the style will need to be modified and it will need to be adapted
to formally update RFC 8713.
A consensus is emerging in the IETF that very long tenure in
leadership roles is not in the best interests of the community.
While, in theory, that advice could simply be given to the Nomcom,
there is reason to believe that a different model for consideration
of renewal or replacement for members of the leadership would be more
efficient for the Nomcom and would impose less hardship on incumbents
and the community. This document outlines that alternate method.
Klensin Expires April 25, 2022 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft Nomcom and Terms of Office October 2021
1.1. Mailing List
This proposal is under discussion on the gendispatch@ietf.org list.
2. The Review and Clean Nomination Model
The current nomination process pits incumbents, incumbent
performance, and questions of stability in the IESG against potential
other candidates. It also gives incumbents and the nomcom no
explicit guidance about how many terms someone should serve. This is
undesirable for a number of reasons. It creates the notion of
incumbents being "fired" rather than honorably retired to the
citizenry after a brief period of contributing to the community by
assuming a leadership role. And, while there is significant value in
treating stability as a goal, it can also create distortions about
the degree of support various ideas have in the community and the
impression of in-groups.
This specification changes the current model by reintroducing some
principles that the authors believe are widely held in the community
and optimizing the selection process to support those principles.
The principles include:
o Service in the IETF's leadership bodies is a short-term
contribution to the community, not a career. Indeed, assuming
those positions may be considered a responsibility to the
community.
o It takes long enough to learn the job of being an effective AD
that, in general, having someone retire after a single two-year
term is uneconomic for the community.
o Just as retirement of an AD after one term should be considered a
major step because of the inefficiencies of the learning period,
the six-month or more period in which an incumbent is uncertain
about whether work should be planned that spans the "first meeting
of the next year" introduces inefficiencies that should be
minimized to the degree possible.
o A demonstrated shortage of people willing to do work in the IETF
should be taken as an indication that there is insufficient real
community interest in the work to reach a meaningful consensus
about high-quality results. While that position appears to be
reasonably well-understood with regard to the number of active
IETF participants interested in putting a working group together,
and in finding leadership for working groups, the same principle
probably should be applied to ADs and areas: if there are only one
or two people willing and qualified to do the AD job, that may be
Klensin Expires April 25, 2022 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft Nomcom and Terms of Office October 2021
an indication that the IETF should review the appropriateness of
that area's existence or definition.
To deal effectively with these problems, the Nomcom consideration and
evaluation process is divided into two phases.
2.1. Phase 1: Review of Incumbents
Incumbent performance should be evaluated, not compared to potential
other candidates or replacements. The incumbent will always have
more experience. An AD who has done his or her job well, will have
accumulated strong proponents and probably strong detractors. Other
candidates are always risks, and direct comparison is inevitably
difficult.
In Phase 1, the Nomcom will evaluate the performance of incumbents,
collecting information from the community as needed to do that. The
Nomcom is instructed that an incumbent should be returned once (i.e.,
permitted/encouraged to serve two terms) unless there is strong
evidence of problems (e.g., incompetence, inability to work with WGs,
inability to work with other ADs, non-feasance, or malfeasance).
Conversely, the Nomcom should assume that it is better to return an
incumbent who has served two terms to the community and active WG
work unless some special circumstances apply.
While this process allows flexibility, the Nomcom is instructed that
"special circumstances" should be a rare occurance, based on what is
best for the affected area, the IESG, and the IETF as a whole.
Simply doing an outstanding job as an AD should not constitute
"special circumstances" that would justify a third term.
The level of special circumstances required for a fourth, or
subsequent, term should be required to be much higher than that for a
third: the intent is to make more than three terms a rare and nearly
impossible event without formally prohibiting that through a term
limit: it is important that the Nomcom retain flexibility and the
opportunity to judge special circumstances.
Discussions between the Nomcom and a candidate as to whether that
candidate is willing to serve again should be covered by the Nomcom's
normal privacy rules except as mutually agreed. If the Nomcom
chooses to not return a candidate who is willing to serve, the
expectation is that this will be indistinguishable to the community
from the candidate voluntarily stepping down. Under normal
circumstances, the Nomcom is expected to conduct informational
evaluations of even those candidates who have chosen to step down
(the evaluations may inform later choices), but such candidates may
negotiate with the Nomcom as appropriate, perhaps supplying in-depth
Klensin Expires April 25, 2022 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft Nomcom and Terms of Office October 2021
analysis of the relevant Area and its status and issues as an
alternative.
At the end of this phase, the Nomcom submits the list of returning
candidates to the IAB as usual. The IAB makes its decision and the
choices are announced to the community. The list of (remaining) open
slots is then announced to the community and nominations and
recommendations sought. Any incumbent who is not returned in this
phase is not eligible for the relevant position in the second phase.
2.2. Phase 2: Nomination and Selection of New Candidates
This procedure works exactly as described in [RFC8713], with the
understanding that no incumbent will ever be a candidate for the same
position under this process. As a side-effect, the process makes it
more difficult than it has traditionally been to shift people around
within the IESG: it is considered an explicit corollary to the
principles above that an incumbent AD is one area should normally
have working experience within one or more WGs in a new area before
being considered as a candidate for AD in that area.
2.3. Revised schedule
[[to be supplied]]
The authors are aware of other proposals that would also affect the
Nomcom timeline. Rather than trying to develop a revised schedule on
a per-proposal basis, we suggest that one Nomcom schedule revision be
considered, based on this and other proposals that would be
accommodated.
3. Previous Discussion Points
In informal discussions before the initial version of this draft was
completed and posted, there was considerable discussion on three
points - whether this proposal should apply only to IESG
appointments, or to all Nomcom appointments, whether "doing an
outstanding job" is justification for third terms, and whether this
proposal should contain a statement of guidance, or hard term limits.
Reasonable people disagreed on both of these points, but the proposal
authors made choices.
The community will need to discuss, and decide upon, these issues.
Klensin Expires April 25, 2022 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft Nomcom and Terms of Office October 2021
3.1. IESG-only, or all Nomcom appointments?
This specification has been written to apply to the IESG only, since
the IESG's operational role and observed rates of AD burnout make it
most obviously important there.
It is possible that consideration should be given as to whether a
similar or identical model should be applied to the IAB and/or other
appointments made by the Nomcom.
3.2. Justification for third terms?
This specification is written to allow Nomcom to return ADs for third
terms, and beyond, due to "special circumstances". One question
we've been asked is whether "doing an outstanding job" should be
included in "special circumstances".
While our intention is to provide guidance to Nomcom, rather than
rules, this specification proposes that this guidance be "no".
o The community is better served by having former ADs returning to
technical work. A consistent criticism of the current working
group process is that specifications often lack sufficient cross-
area review when they are forwarded for publication. ADs provide
this type of review, but currently-serving ADs don't have time to
provide reviews early in the development of a draft, where it is
most useful and most likely to have a positive impact.
o Allowing "doing an outstanding job" to constitute "special
circumstances" removes deterministic benefits of this model. The
intention is that ADs return to the community after two terms. It
is desired that all ADs "do an outstanding job" - this proposal
would remove the ADs who do not, after their first term - but Only
in Lake Woebegon are all the children above average, and Lake
Wobegon is a fictitious place.
o We also note that former ADs are often asked to serve as working
group chairs in difficult situations, to help with BOFs and WG
charter discussions, and to carry out assignments that benefit
from AD experience but do not require the assignee to be a serving
AD.
3.3. Guidance, or hard limit on service length?
There was considerable discussion about whether it was better to
offer the Nomcom the guidance above, discouraging terms beyond the
second, or whether to flatly prohibit more than two terms. One group
believed that giving the Nomcom a little extra flexibility was a good
Klensin Expires April 25, 2022 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft Nomcom and Terms of Office October 2021
idea; the other believed that any additional flexibility would likely
lead to very long terms since there would always be a reason to make
an exception.
The authors of this proposal prefer to offer Nomcom guidance, rather
than rules. To take one example - if the Nomcom believes that
returning a third-term AD is appropriate (due, perhaps, to serving
area directors stepping down before the end of second terms), we
prefer to allow Nomcom this flexibility, rather than restrict them to
a course of action that seems ill-advised.
4. Internationalization Considerations
This specification is about IETF Procedures. It has no impact on
internationalization issues.
5. IANA Considerations
This specification is about IETF Procedures. It has no impact on
IANA issues and does not contemplate any IANA actions.
6. Security considerations
This specification is about IETF Procedures for leadership selection.
It has no impact on Internet security issues.
7. Contributor
Spencer Dawson was co-author of the 2005-2006 versions of this draft
and contributed very significantly to the thinking that went into
them. It was not possible to contact him and get his review and
assent before posting this version, so his is identified him as a
Contributor but may be moved back to authorship in the future.
8. Acknowledgements
[[ to be supplied ]]
9. Normative References
[RFC8713] Kucherawy, M., Ed., Hinden, R., Ed., and J. Livingood,
Ed., "IAB, IESG, IETF Trust, and IETF LLC Selection,
Confirmation, and Recall Process: Operation of the IETF
Nominating and Recall Committees", BCP 10, RFC 8713,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8713, February 2020,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8713>.
Klensin Expires April 25, 2022 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft Nomcom and Terms of Office October 2021
Appendix A. Change Log
[[RFC Editor: Please remove this section before publication.]]
A.1. Changes from draft-klensin-Nomcom-term-01 (2006-06-24) to -03
o Updated contact information, a reference, and changed needed to
get from xml2rfc v1 to v2.
o Added introductory note and updated target mailing list.
o Moved Spencer (I hope temporarily) to "Contributor".
Author's Address
John C Klensin
1770 Massachusetts Ave, #322
Cambridge, MA 02140
USA
Phone: +1 617 491 5735
Email: john-ietf@jck.com
Klensin Expires April 25, 2022 [Page 8]