Re: [ietf-nomcom] NomCom 2023 Extension of Nomination Period to 2023-10-12

[Martin Thomson <[e-mail]>]

Hi Mike,

On Thu, Sep 28, 2023, at 11:56, Michael StJohns wrote:
> Can you expound a bit on the thinking of how the term of the position 
> is 1 year rather than 3?  Is the IESG declaring the ART position vacant 
> now ?  

My understanding is that the position is not vacant today, but it will become vacant at the March IETF meeting.  So the same logic as applied to Lars' vacancy applies.  With all the same caveats.  As the vacancy is not less than one year (it is one year exactly), the term duration is one year.

> We sort of blinked at this for Lars, 

In terms of process, we're definitely not in territory that is well mapped by RFCs.  But the feedback we got in the previous consultations was that with adequate community consultation (as run by the IESG in this case) it was broadly acceptable.  I concluded that a separate comment period for the NomCom half of this transaction wasn't going to help us.

> *_Generally, moving someone from one AD position to another is handled 
> by the Nomcom, not  by the IESG._*   

Can you point me to where this is documented?  I have consulted RFC 8713 and the word "area" appears only in two places and one of those places is an "Oral Tradition" appendix.  My best interpretation of that is the alternative fungible one you included in your postscript.  Fungible ADs are free to move around, which fits my mental model better: they already do that to some degree for those working groups that are in one area, but are overseen by an AD from a different area.

I will admit that that interpretation requires extrapolating from a very small signal, so I'm relying on the consultation that the IESG ran as far as legitimacy goes.

I'm not old enough to remember the details previous IESG shuffles, so I'll rely on others regarding what happened in those cases, if precedent is your preferred method of judging criterion.

Cheers,
Martin