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

Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org> Mon, 08 July 2019 15:25 UTC

Return-Path: <barryleiba@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: iasa20@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: iasa20@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 967CC12028E; Mon, 8 Jul 2019 08:25:36 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.108
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.108 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN=0.247, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.249, PDS_NO_HELO_DNS=1.295, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id GlCQJQMNC4HF; Mon, 8 Jul 2019 08:25:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-io1-f42.google.com (mail-io1-f42.google.com [209.85.166.42]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8F013120281; Mon, 8 Jul 2019 08:24:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-io1-f42.google.com with SMTP id q22so14318238iog.4; Mon, 08 Jul 2019 08:24:21 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=QSHBvDkQqo5vQcQguLObNUh+pyDmSQ9oqUCl7xHIkUA=; b=eEj730Vc3OCRR/Pzakg+gLniUDEDKAGNpbbZgyzU8MMKVA0bReVoDOOOd6hmecTN3Z 6hF0Vp6iADYftI8kvbnD+g2rw24ngthh7Bp6YugDmv7c+cMXiVI0WP5nAJ4Uh+EOlqrM QyRiGAvwFs/G2G5DpbizrQETIun1kRg5mehHjk1kTA2NGwD46L/oCr0/6Bg/dCOQP6Qd ytbREUobx8PH7yl1aD+ud3S+p99GCdc6Zo0TdatOGX3oCsRUOHPN5EfUomi9loW1cHSl 0lEd55LneOhSeRlgwaZSYOM6eUKRqbiAXXyGpIFFoZGLp6A+fd05Ii0nVBh2eqR/t1os Z3Lg==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAW2L9lkK26mF/mLFZeGKrVBXtkK6wkhwR5zvOPMYcO9J3Vzuzzb PjG/gA9qcrMA6nwun7BQxh9iu7r8FBkuIrM0dUU=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqwzmXogUAFCS2RH23tpZfMbJppRwmXnsywgI+CC+41Oq3SnWFYBq1Lkx+0wqSIB565AbQBk3Eo4s8kfxMehE/s=
X-Received: by 2002:a6b:b497:: with SMTP id d145mr20030007iof.17.1562599460380; Mon, 08 Jul 2019 08:24:20 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <156141779186.17522.6942767062911073521.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <1C131171-0ABE-4DB1-BEB7-03E765B1E6C6@cooperw.in> <CALaySJKHut1EL_eKQ5rhSXFeF6_+EizwcHdhxhieRy3D3dzQwg@mail.gmail.com> <F15F78D3-2257-4F1B-B832-D9C7CC47E512@gmail.com> <CALaySJK+=W6FwMcHJ-nuyZFmvukMN_GUh6qDAWvwHnizyZqy9A@mail.gmail.com> <4710C519-37CC-4586-83E7-02776889370F@gmail.com> <CALaySJ+1q4jrFk9+g=kwk86Lc=GMpFniFWXoNYsidOL6F_uZag@mail.gmail.com> <cc578052-6be1-6a5a-f05f-2bf38d3210dc@gmail.com> <CALaySJ+64zmmbtYy4P+ke9q78MdrKitDCNk=8ErtoD7HzeLY_Q@mail.gmail.com> <CALaySJ+N20pRmd58EZjtaBERGWo=F3S-2yQqRjsgvN9AJO+n9w@mail.gmail.com> <09C83635-DC7B-47BD-999D-2E6D0BBCA68F@cooperw.in>
In-Reply-To: <09C83635-DC7B-47BD-999D-2E6D0BBCA68F@cooperw.in>
From: Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>
Date: Mon, 8 Jul 2019 11:24:08 -0400
Message-ID: <CALaySJJsgj0cVu3oWU-=1MVeWooKiRpZ7XRpjhpnQALrmam+Ag@mail.gmail.com>
To: Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in>
Cc: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>, Bob Hinden <bob.hinden@gmail.com>, IASA 2 WG <iasa20@ietf.org>, iasa2-chairs@ietf.org, IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-iasa2-rfc7437bis@ietf.org, Jon Peterson <jon.peterson@team.neustar>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/iasa20/KMdOXgcclpPodtZWOtlutMKu6l8>
Subject: Re: [Iasa20] Barry Leiba's Discuss on draft-ietf-iasa2-rfc7437bis-07: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: iasa20@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: =?iso-8859-1?q?Discussions_relating_to_reorganising_the_IETF_administrative_structures_in_the_so_called_=93IASA_2=2E0=94_project=2E?= <iasa20.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/iasa20>, <mailto:iasa20-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/iasa20/>
List-Post: <mailto:iasa20@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:iasa20-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/iasa20>, <mailto:iasa20-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 08 Jul 2019 15:25:44 -0000

> 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?

Barry