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

[Alissa Cooper <[e-mail]>]

Hi Barry,

> On Apr 9, 2019, at 9:43 AM, Barry Leiba <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> 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.
> 
> Can someone point me to a discussion in the archive that covers this?

The first time the "1 IETF Chair or delegate selected by the IESG” language appeared in the draft was in the -02 of the individual draft that pre-dated rfc4071bis, dated May 14, 2018: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-hall-iasa2-struct-02#section-4.6 <https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-hall-iasa2-struct-02#section-4.6>. The addition of the “delegate” language arose out of discussions in this thread: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/iasa20/8L7sqS1AeXKDXZYGy0pq8h9-Xo4 <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/iasa20/8L7sqS1AeXKDXZYGy0pq8h9-Xo4>. There were some quibbles with it but mostly expressions of support. Every subsequent thread that I can find included the delegate language (search for “director sources” in the subject line of the mail archive to see many examples, or see the threads at [1] or [2] for other examples). See also the minutes from IETF 102: https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/102/materials/minutes-102-iasa2-01 <https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/102/materials/minutes-102-iasa2-01>. Based on how much discussion there was and how long this language remained unchanged, I don’t think characterizing it as an option that was “included grudingly” is accurate.

I agree with you that the document could be more clear about the applicability of the two-year term length. I would suggest the following clarifications:

In 6.1: 
OLD
At the IESG's discretion, another
   area director may serve instead, or exceptionally the IESG may run a
   selection process to appoint a director. 

NEW
At the IESG's discretion, another
   area director may be appointed instead, or exceptionally the IESG may run a
   selection process to appoint a director. 
   
In 6.4:
OLD
The Director slot occupied by the IETF Chair ex officio or a
      delegate selected by the IESG will serve a two-year term.  This
      makes the term length for this slot the same as the term lengths
      established in [I-D.ietf-iasa2-rfc7437bis], Section 3.4.

NEW
The Director slot occupied by the IETF Chair ex officio or a
      delegate selected by the IESG will serve a two-year term.  This applies regardless of whether the appointed individual is on the IESG, rotates off the IESG during the two-year term, or is not on the IESG. This makes the term length for this slot the same as the term lengths established in [I-D.ietf-iasa2-rfc7437bis], Section 3.4.

Thanks,
Alissa

[1] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/iasa20/LbUBHkCY9r_QNRo7Wn5b-8KB6Ws <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/iasa20/LbUBHkCY9r_QNRo7Wn5b-8KB6Ws>
[2] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/iasa20/mxdOf4xg-ykBMfLJDuqWDDOM9Y8 <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/iasa20/mxdOf4xg-ykBMfLJDuqWDDOM9Y8> (not about this document but touches on the same issue)


> I'm looking, but so far I have not see one.  I'm still looking.
> 
> Barry
> 
> _______________________________________________
> iasa20 mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/iasa20