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

[Bob Hinden <[e-mail]>]

Barry,

> On Jul 9, 2019, at 12:28 PM, Barry Leiba <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> I have added my suggested text, below, to my ballot and moved the
> whole thing from the DISCUSS section to the COMMENT section.  I've
> also changed my ballot to "yes", reflecting the importance I see in
> having this document approved.
> 
> I'd still like to see the clarification I propose made, but I'm OK
> with accepting the judgment of Bob and Alissa, and we now have
> something on record to point to if there should actually be any
> confusion about applying the IAB-vacancy exception before the whole
> process is revised again.
> 
> I'll repeat that I appreciate the work in making the updates here, and
> the discussion that finally led to my understanding the issue that I
> had found unclear.

Thanks.  I have gone through your other comments on the IASA 2 changes, and have adopted a number of them in a local draft I am working on.

Bob


> 
> Barry
> 
> On Mon, Jul 8, 2019 at 11:24 AM Barry Leiba <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> 
>>> 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