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

[Brian E Carpenter <[e-mail]>]

On 10-Apr-19 01:43, Barry Leiba wrote:
>>> 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.

Sorry, that implication was an unintended side-effect.

What I'm getting at is that we have a method of removing any IESG
member from the IESG (i.e. a recall) and two methods of removing
NomCom-appointed LLC Directors (section 6.7 of the draft). But
I now see that we've failed to define a method of removing the
IESG-appointed LLC Director if that became appropriate. That does
seem to need fixing. As long as Directors can be removed, we
don't need to analyze all possible contingencies.

So how about changing the language to make it clear that the
IESG can remove as well as appoint their Director?

Skipping to later in the thread, I prefer your suggestion #2:

>> 2. Make it clear that once the IESG appoints an AD as Director, that
>> person will serve her full term (modulo resignation, and see below),
>> regardless of whether she remains an AD.  It sounds like this is the
>> best way to make everyone on this discussion thread happy, but I think
>> we still need to go to the working group for consensus on it.

I definitely agree with your suggestion that there needs to be
some language to cover mid-term replacement.

     Brian