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

[John C Klensin <[e-mail]>]

--On Tuesday, April 9, 2019 11:06 -0400 Barry Leiba
<[e-mail]> wrote:

>...
> 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.

Like you, I don't believe the WG got nearly as far down into
those issues, certainly not in the form of a discussion with
wide participation.

> 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.
> 
> 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.

Agreed.  It also needs to be absolutely clear as to whether the
IESG can pick someone who is not a sitting AD at the time the
choice is made.  I think it does and probably don't care, but it
should be clear one way or the other.  That clarification is
probably not an editorial chance either.

> 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.
> 
> 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.

My personal preference is for 1, then 2, and could happily live
with either.  Because a decision by the IESG about what was
unusual or special enough to be considered an exceptional
circumstance would potentially be subject to an appeal and we
don't need to invite that sort of aggravation, I'd suggest that
we not put any more stress or focus on "exceptionally" than
necessary.
 
> 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?

Yes.  However, as I tried to suggest in an earlier note and
somewhat following up on one of Mirja's concerns, if there is
any circumstance in which we could end up with an LLC Board
member who is not a sitting AD, there needs to be a mechanism
for removing that person from the LLC Board, presumably for
malfeasance or non-feasance.  If we have a situation in which
someone resigns, retires, or is retired from the IESG but can
continue to serve out their term on the LLC Board, it is not
clear that even a recall from the AD position would change their
status vis-a-vis the LLC.

So I see that as another issue the document needs to address
that does not now seem to be covered.

   john