Re: [Iasa20] Barry Leiba's Discuss on draft-ietf-iasa2-rfc7437bis-07: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

[Brian E Carpenter <[e-mail]>]

On 09-Jul-19 03:24, Barry Leiba wrote:
>> The exception in the document seems consistent with the following hypothetical situation:
>>
>> The nomcom for year 2035-2036 has been seated. Alice has been on the
>> IAB for one year. She is also a nominee for an AD position in the Foo
>> area. There are also six open positions on the IAB.
>>
>> The nomcom does its deliberations and selects Alice to be the next Foo
>> AD. They also select six people to serve on the IAB. They send the IESG
>> slate to the IAB for confirmation and the IAB, with Alice recused,
>> confirms the slate. Alice resigns from her position on the IAB. The IAB
>> chair informs the nomcom of the mid-term vacancy created by Alice
>> resigning. The nomcom selects a seventh candidate to serve on the IAB
>> (since they have a pool of nominees and filling the vacancy is a
>> responsibility of the 2035-2036 nomcom) and sends the IAB slate to the
>> ISOC BoT for confirmation. The announcements of the confirmed slates
>> and of Alice’s resignation from the IAB then happen simultaneously.
>>
>> I think this is different from the 2013 situation because all of the
>> events are taking place during the established nomcom timeline for
>> getting people seated by the first IETF meeting of the year, so the IAB
>> candidate pool for 2036 is still “active,” so to speak.
> 
> OK... then you're saying that in the case that the NomCom has not yet
> announce the IAB slate, the exception says that they can fill an extra
> IAB position without advertising that to the community, because
> there's already a bunch of people who put their names in for IAB
> positions and there's no reason to think that knowing that there's one
> more open position will matter.
> 
> I get that, and, understanding it, I do agree that that was the intent
> of that text.
> 
> May I suggest, then, the following edit to make it clear?:
> 
> OLD
>    However, the following exception is permitted in the case where the
>    candidate for an open position is currently a sitting member of the
>    IAB.
> 
> NEW
>    However, an exception is permitted in the case where the
>    candidate for an open position is currently a sitting member of the
>    IAB.  Because there is already a pool of candidates for a set of IAB
>    positions, the NomCom does not a need to inform the community
>    explicitly that one more position is becoming available, so par of the
>    process can overlap.
> 
> END
> 
> Tweak as necessary, but does that work?  Alissa, Bob, others, what do you think?

FWIW I think I finally understood what was bothering Barry and I think this
tweak does express what the drafters of RFC7437 thought they were saying. So
this would be a confirmed erratum on RFC7437, if that was where we were in
the process. It's above my pay grade to decide whether we should handle it
now or wait for RFC7437bisbis.

John Klensin's subsequent message would be a substantive change of intent,
IMHO. I'm not sure how I feel about it.

    Brian