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

[Ted Hardie <[e-mail]>]

On Mon, Apr 8, 2019 at 9:51 AM Russ Housley <[e-mail]> 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 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)
<https://www.ietf.org/blog/discuss-criteria-iesg-review/#stand-disc>. In
other words, disagreement in preferences among technically sound
approaches.

regards,

Ted