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

As I said in a comment in my review, having a two years term with the option to have someone else than the IETF chair also means that either only newly seated ADs could be selected or an AD would potentially need to stay in its director role even after the end of his/her AD term (which would potentially not provide the information exchange with the IESG as intended). I think this case should at least be discussed and clarified in the draft.

Mirja

> On 8. Apr 2019, at 19:08, Bob Hinden <bob.hinden@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Ted,
> 
>> On Apr 8, 2019, at 10:01 AM, Ted Hardie <ted.ietf@gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>> On Mon, Apr 8, 2019 at 9:51 AM Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>>> Speaking personally, I believe consideration to this point was given.  See the threads leading up to Jason's message with the title "Consensus on Director Sources and Number"  August 1, 2018.
>> 
>> I agree that this was discussed, but I can see that a one-year term for the IESG appointment would work better with the way that the IESG assigns various people to jobs.  That gets revisited every March.  So, if we really want the IESG to be able to pick someone other than the IETF Chair, the one-year term does seem to be a better fit.
>> 
>> But shifting that often would be terrible for the Board.  As it stands, there's a lot of context in all of 
>> this and that amount of transition is just bad for forward progress.  Since this appointee has to act on behalf of the whole organization (as all board members do), having them have less context than the other members is already bad; shifting to one year would make it potentially much worse.  I think that would make this much closer to a liaison role, with all the issues that entails.
> 
> I agree, and to add, I think it would also be terrible for the IETF.   Having a longer term membership is good to keep the LLC aligned with the needs of the IETF.   
> 
> For the same reasons, in my view, it SHOULD be the IETF Chair.   With the usual “should” caveat unless there is a good reason to have have someone else.
> 
> Bob
> 
> 
>> 
>> I believe Barry's DISCUSS was "was this choice made deliberately?" and the answer to that is clear: yes.  We could take this as a signal to re-litigate it, but that is not the point of the IESG review and would not be an appropriate reaction to this DISCUSS.  That would, in fact, shift it over the line in the DISCUSS criteria document to DISCUSS non-criteria:
>> 
>> Disagreement with informed WG decisions that do not exhibit problems outlined in Section 3.1 (DISCUSS Criteria). In other words, disagreement in preferences among technically sound approaches.
>> 
>> regards,
>> 
>> Ted
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> iasa20 mailing list
>> iasa20@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/iasa20
> 
> 