rfc2727.txt

著名的RFC文档,其中有一些文档是已经翻译成中文的的.

   a. Up until a candidate is confirmed, the identity of the candidate
      must be kept confidential.

   b. The identity of all nominees must be kept confidential (except
      that the nominee may publicize their intentions).

   c. Rejected nominees may be notified as soon as they are rejected.

   d. Rejected candidates may be notified as soon as they are rejected.

   e. Rejected nominees and candidates must be notified prior to
      announcing confirmed candidates.

   f. Confirmed candidates may be notified and announced as soon as they
      are confirmed.

      It is consistent with these rules for a nominee to never know if
      they were a candidate or not.

      It is consistent with these rules for some nominees to be rejected
      early in the process and for some nominees to be kept as
      alternates in case a candidate is rejected by a confirming body.
      In the matter of whether a confirmed candidate was a first choice
      or an alternate, that information need not ever be disclosed and,
      in fact, probably never should be.

      It is consistent with these rules for confirmed candidates to be
      notified and announced as quickly as possible instead of requiring
      all confirmed candidates to wait until all open positions have
      been reviewed.

      When consulting with individual members of the IETF community, if
      all parties to the consultation agree to observe customary and
      reasonable rules of confidentiality the consultations are
      permitted to include a slate of nominees.

      The announcements must be publicized using at least the same
      mechanism used by the IETF secretariat for its announcements.

5.  Member Recall

   The following rules apply to the recall process.  If necessary, a
   paragraph discussing the interpretation of each rule is included.

   (1)  Anyone may request the recall of any sitting IAB or IESG member,
        at any time, upon written (email is acceptable) request with
        justification to the Internet Society President.




Galvin                   Best Current Practice                 [Page 11]

RFC 2727                 IAB and IESG Selection            February 2000


   (2)  Internet Society President shall appoint a Recall Committee
        Chair.

      The Internet Society President must not evaluate the recall
      request.  It is explicitly the responsibility of the IETF
      community to evaluate the behavior of its leaders.

   (3)  The recall committee is created according to the same rules as
        is the nominating committee with the qualifications that the
        person being investigated and the person requesting the recall
        must not be a member of the recall committee in any capacity.

   (4)  The recall committee operates according to the same rules as the
        nominating committee with the qualification that there is no
        confirmation process.

   (5)  The recall committee investigates the circumstances of the
        justification for the recall and votes on its findings.

      The investigation must include at least both an opportunity for
      the member being recalled to present a written statement and
      consultation with third parties.

   (6)  A 3/4 majority of the members who vote on the question is
        required for a recall.

   (7)  If a sitting member is recalled the open position is to be
      filled according to the mid-term vacancy rules.

6.  Changes From RFC2282

   Editorial changes are not described here, only substantive changes.
   They are listed here in the order in which they appear in the
   document.

   (1)  The frame of reference for timeframes was changed from the
        seasonal "Spring IETF" reference to the less geographic and more
        temporal "First IETF" reference.

   (2)  The terms of the sitting members and their respective confirmed
        candidates is explicitly permitted to overlap during the First
        IETF as determined by their mutual agreement.

   (3)  Nominating committee members who have served on prior committees
        are explicitly permitted to advise the current committee on the
        deliberations and results of the prior committee.





Galvin                   Best Current Practice                 [Page 12]

RFC 2727                 IAB and IESG Selection            February 2000


   (4)  The role and opportunity for additional advisors and liaisons to
        the nominating committee was clarified.

   (5)  A reference to a documented and accepted fair and unbiased
        mechanism for randomly selecting nominating committee members
        from the pool of volunteers was added.

   (6)  The option for the prior year's Chair to select a designee to
        serve as liaison to the current year's committee was clarified
        to ensure the Chair selected a non-voting liaison from a pool
        composed of the prior year's voting members and all prior
        committee Chairs.

   (7)  The responsibility and authority for the activities of the
        nominating committee rests with the committee as a whole, not
        with the Chair.  The operation of the committee was clarified to
        require changes in process and the handling of exceptions to be
        approved by the committee as a whole as opposed to being at the
        discretion of the Chair.

   (8)  The rule that prevented nominating committee members from being
        eligible to be considered for any open position was clarified to
        explicitly state that the rule applies from the point in time
        that the committee membership is announced through the entire
        term of the current committee.

7.  Acknowledgements

   There have been a number of people involved with the development of
   this document over the years.  A great deal of credit goes to the
   first three Nominating Committee Chairs:

        1993 - Jeff Case

        1994 - Fred Baker

        1995 - John Curran

   who had the pleasure of operating without the benefit of a documented
   process.  It was their fine work and oral tradition that became the
   first version of this document.  Of course we can not overlook the
   bug discovery burden that each of the Chairs since the first
   publication have had to endure:








Galvin                   Best Current Practice                 [Page 13]

RFC 2727                 IAB and IESG Selection            February 2000


        1996 - Guy Almes

        1997 - Geoff Houston

        1998 - Mike St. Johns

        1999 - Donald Eastlake

   Of course the bulk of the credit goes to the members of the POISSON
   Working Group, previously the POISED Working Group.  The prose here
   would not be what it is were it not for the attentive and insightful
   review of its members.  Specific acknowledgement must be extended to
   Scott Bradner and John Klensin, who have consistently contributed to
   the improvement of this document throughout its evolution.

8.  Security Considerations

   Any selection, confirmation, or recall process necessarily involves
   investigation into the qualifications and activities of prospective
   candidates.  The investigation may reveal confidential or otherwise
   private information about candidates to those participating in the
   process.  Each person who participates in any aspect of the process
   has a responsibility to maintain the confidentiality of any and all
   information not explicitly identified as suitable for public
   dissemination.

9.  References

   [1]  Eastlake, D., "Publicly Verifiable Nomcom Random Selection", RFC
        2777, February 2000.

10.  Editor's Address

   James M. Galvin
   eList eXpress LLC
   607 Trixsam Road
   Sykesville, MD 21784

   EMail: [e-mail]












Galvin                   Best Current Practice                 [Page 14]

RFC 2727                 IAB and IESG Selection            February 2000


11.  Full Copyright Statement

   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2000).  All Rights Reserved.

   This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to
   others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it
   or assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published
   and distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any
   kind, provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are
   included on all such copies and derivative works.  However, this
   document itself may not be modified in any way, such as by removing
   the copyright notice or references to the Internet Society or other
   Internet organizations, except as needed for the purpose of
   developing Internet standards in which case the procedures for
   copyrights defined in the Internet Standards process must be
   followed, or as required to translate it into languages other than
   English.

   The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be
   revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assigns.

   This document and the information contained herein is provided on an
   "AS IS" basis and THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING
   TASK FORCE DISCLAIMS 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.

Acknowledgement

   Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the
   Internet Society.



















Galvin                   Best Current Practice                 [Page 15]