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

[Joseph Lorenzo Hall <[e-mail]>]

On Tue, Apr 9, 2019 at 11:06 AM Barry Leiba <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Hi, Joe.
>
> >> 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.
> >
> > I still don't get the concern here, Barry, apologies. Is the sole
> > concern that if an AD is not on the same cycle as the Chair then the
> > IESG may be constrained in picking that person? I don't think that's
> > the case; even if that person cycles out of the AD role they can still
> > serve as the IESG-appointed member. It would be less of an effective
> > liaison with IESG since that person would not be deep in the mix for
> > that last year. Do we need to specify that this IESG-appointed LLC
> > director must be in cycle with the chair (since the text says this is a
> > two-year appointment and having someone not on IESG for their last year
> > doesn't seem ideal).
>
> My concern is that the IESG is limited in whom it can choose, and it's
> not clear to me that that was intentional and that the working group
> actually considered these issues.
>
> As I said in the message you quoted, I don't agree that the current
> text allows the IESG to pick an AD, have that AD leave the IESG in a
> year, and simply have that AD continue as the IESG-appointed Director.
> As I read the text, the IESG would have to run a selection process,
> which might or might not result in the same person being selected to
> continue.  Further, should that happen then the IESG-appointed
> position would become out of sync with the IETF Chair cycle, and that
> could cause unexpected and undesirable results down the line.
>
>
Minor point: I don't think the text says that if an IESG-appointed AD
Director ceases being an AD that anything special is supposed to happen
(like running a selection process). It's about what they are at the time of
appointment, not what they become later in their term.


> OK, so let me try to lay out what I think we need to do to clear up
> this situation.  The point is that I want the document to be clear
> about what the choices really are -- because I don't think it is --
> and to be sure the working group has consensus on the result --
> because I think this is too significant a change to be simply
> editorial.
>
> I suggest the following alternatives (one could come up with others, I'm
> sure):
>
> 1. Change the term for the IESG-appointed Director to 1 year, with
> language strongly recommending multiple terms for that member (likely
> using the word "exceptional" to describe a single one-year term).
> This would also mean changing the term limit for that role to be
> specified in number of years, rather than number of terms.
>
> 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 prefer 2 here. Curious to see what others think. best, Joe


> 3. Move the word "exceptionally" earlier in the sentence, to make the
> selection of anyone other than the IETF Chair exceptional.  It would
> be helpful, should the working group choose this, to also add text
> making it explicitly clear that this is meant to be an IETF Chair ex
> officio position.  I gather this is what some on this thread want;
> it's my personal last choice... but in any case, I'd want to see
> working group consensus for the choice.
>
> I'll also note that, as we've mentioned, it's possible for a Director
> to resign mid-term, and if we simply appoint another AD for a two-year
> term we might get that position out of sync with the IETF Chair cycle.
> So I think it's important to also add text specifying that a mid-term
> replacement will serve:
> * if the remainder of the term is more than a year, through the end of
> that term, or
> * if the remainder of the term is a year or less, through the end of
> that term plus another term.
>
> Does this make sense to everyone?
>
> Barry
>


-- 
Joseph Lorenzo Hall
Chief Technologist, Center for Democracy & Technology [https://www.cdt.org]
1401 K ST NW STE 200, Washington DC 20005-3497
e: [e-mail], p: 202.407.8825, pgp: https://josephhall.org/gpg-key
Fingerprint: 3CA2 8D7B 9F6D DBD3 4B10  1607 5F86 6987 40A9 A871

Don't miss out! CDT's Tech Prom is April 10, 2019, at The
Anthem. Please join us: https://cdt.org/annual-dinner/