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

[Barry Leiba <[e-mail]>]

>> 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:

   At the IESG's discretion, another
   area director may serve instead, or exceptionally the IESG may run a
   selection process to appoint a director.

First, what this says to me is that in order for the board member to
be someone other than an AD, we have to run a selection process.  Just
letting someone fall out does not meet that requirement.

Second, the selection process is put forth as an exceptional
situation.  I don't think that routine appointees not returning to the
IESG constitutes an exceptional situation.

As I understand that text, it would block the IESG from appointing an
AD who is not on the same cycle as the chair, because the IESG would
intentionally be stepping into an exceptional condition.

> Did the WG analyze every possible ramification? No. But as far as I'm
> concerned this was a conscious choice that obtained WG consensus.

Of course the WG didn't and couldn't analyze *every* possibility;
please don't try to pull my concern into appearing ridiculous.

What I see -- and, so far, no comments have shown otherwise -- is that
the term period was well considered, but, in general, the effect that
that period has on the ability of the IESG to actually have a
meaningful choice in whom we select... was not.  It *appears* to me
that the alternatives for the IESG were included grudgingly, where at
least a few people just wanted it to be the IETF Chair ex officio, and
that's it.  My issue here is that if we're given a choice it has to be
a real choice, not a Hobson's choice.

Can someone point me to a discussion in the archive that covers this?
I'm looking, but so far I have not see one.  I'm still looking.

Barry