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

[Russ Housley <[e-mail]>]

> On Apr 8, 2019, at 12:46 PM, Ted Hardie <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> On Sun, Apr 7, 2019 at 10:44 PM Barry Leiba via Datatracker <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
> Barry Leiba has entered the following ballot position for
> 
> DISCUSS:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> — Section 6.4 —
> Adding to what Mirja notes about a two-year term for the IESG appointee: the
> text here clearly assumes it will be the IETF Chair, allows it not to be, but
> makes that situation awkward.  Each IESG should be able to change the
> appointment if it thinks it appropriate.  In particular, we chose the IETF
> chair this time to maintain continuity with the transition, but we might
> prefer, once the startup tasks are done, to move to someone else in order to
> lighten the load on the IETF Chair position.  I think such delegation is
> important.
> 
> I believe the working group discussed the length of the appointment for this particular role
> and that the decision to make it two years was done after that consideration was complete.
> As you'll note, the other directors are 3 year terms in the common case, and that amount of time
> to come up to speed and begin to serve effectively matches the IETF experience with appointments
> to the Internet Society Board of Trustees.  Choosing to make this a shorter term that aligned with
> an IESG member's term was called out as needed in this text:
>    the goal of having this slot on the board is to maintain coordination and 
>    communication between the board and the IESG. (from Section 6.1)
> Having a liaison who was not a full member of the board would have been alternative, but the desire
> to keep the board small and tightly focused caused that alternative to be rejected.
>  
> So for a number of reasons, a one-year term makes more sense, perhaps with text
> encouraging reappointment for two or three years, would be better (along with
> appropriate changes to term limits in 6.5 to specify years rather than terms). 
> Did the working group specifically discuss and reject this?  Or was it just
> aligned to the IETF Chair’s term without giving consideration to these points?
> 
> 
> 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.

Russ