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

[Ted Hardie <[e-mail]>]

On Sun, Apr 7, 2019 at 10:44 PM Barry Leiba via Datatracker <
[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.

regards,

Ted


>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> COMMENT:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> — Section 4.1 —
> Is there a difference, now, between the meanings of “IASA” and “IASA 2.0”?
>
> — Section 6.9 —
> I’ll point out that two thirds of 5 is not 3, so both a quorum and a vote
> on an
> “act of the Board” require a supermajority of 4 out of 5 Directors.  That
> seems
> like it could end up being problematic.
>
> — Section 6.10 —
> What does “from time to time” mean here?  I can’t figure out how to fit the
> normal English meaning of the idiom in here.
>
>
>