Re: [Iasa20] Barry Leiba's Discuss on draft-ietf-iasa2-rfc4071bis-08: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

John,

> On Apr 9, 2019, at 9:09 AM, John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> wrote:
> 
> In article <CALaySJKQPNWYF52HAJar53DoZ_RgyN1oFW3JpABbW9KXrjbyWA@mail.gmail.com> you write:
>>>> As Joe noted, they do not have to be members of the IESG at all.  If they were appointed
>>>> while on the IESG and then rotated off by NomCom action, they could still serve the
>>>> remaining year.  Presumably, the IESG would have to take that into account when
>>>> deciding who to select, but it is pretty clearly permitted by the document now.
>>> 
>>> Agreed. And as somebody else pointed out, the incumbent can always resign
>>> if they happen to leave the IESG mid-term; or not, if they are happy to
>>> continue for another year
>> 
>> Several comments have said this, but I don't see that it's consistent
>> with the document: ...
> 
> That was me and you're right, it's not consistent with the document.
> 
> Once again we are falling into the chronic IETF trap of obsessing
> about process corner cases.  This document says that the IESG will
> probably appoint the Chair to the LLC board, but if the chair doesn't
> want to do it they can appoint someone else.  We are arguing about a
> scenario where A) the chair doesn't want to do it, B) the IESG
> appoints someone else who they expect to be on the IESG for at least
> two years but isn't, C) the IESG would like to appoint someone else,
> and D) the person says, no, the LLC slot is MINE MINE MINE and I'm not
> leaving a moment before I have to.  Or B) they appoint someone who
> they expect will resign from the LLC if not reappointed, but ...
> 
> Having been on the IAOC, I can predict that once the initial setup is
> done the LLC's business will be boring, stuff like D&O insurance and
> how to write software RFPs so someone other than the usual suspects
> might apply.  It's just as likely that the IESG would ask the
> incumbent if he or she were willing to continue for another year, and
> be very grateful if the answer were yes.
> 
> I would leave the language alone, and if it turns out there's an
> *actual* problem we haven't anticipated, we can fix it.

+1  It’s more like a corner of a corner case :-)

Another alternative not discussed is to change so it has to be the IETF Chair.   No exceptions.

Bob

> 
> R's,
> John
> 
> _______________________________________________
> iasa20 mailing list
> iasa20@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/iasa20