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 4:52 PM Brian E Carpenter <
[e-mail]> wrote:

> 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?
>
>
Well, the IESG-appointed Director could be removed by the IETF recall
process, no? So we should add another explicit mechanism? Is it as easy as
adding the following to 6.1: "The IESG may remove an IESG-appointed
director at their discretion."


> 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.
>

Barry or someone had some language that was of the gist: "may appoint
someone to fill the remainder of the vacant term" which seems very simple.

(I'm trying to boil this down to edits.)

-- 
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