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

[Alissa Cooper <[e-mail]>]

Hi Barry,

> On Apr 8, 2019, at 1:44 AM, Barry Leiba via Datatracker <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> Barry Leiba has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-iasa2-rfc4071bis-08: Discuss
> 
> When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
> email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
> introductory paragraph, however.)
> 
> 
> Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
> for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
> 
> 
> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-iasa2-rfc4071bis/
> 
> 
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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.  

Can you explain how it makes it 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.
> 
> 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). 

Another drawback to a one-year term in addition to the ones already mentioned in the thread is that if the IESG does want to run a selection process to fill this slot, they would have to begin that process after appointing a person to this role only 8 or 9 months earlier (to allow time for a call for candidates, feedback, announcing the appointment in advance of the new person being seated, etc.), and possibly before seeing the outcome of one of the board’s major deliberations — whether to approve the following year’s budget. 

Alissa

> 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?
> 
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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.
> 
>