Re: [rfc-i] IAB Seeks Feedback on Independent Submissions Editor

Michael StJohns <> Sat, 14 September 2019 17:24 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 03F87120073 for <>; Sat, 14 Sep 2019 10:24:04 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.699
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.699 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id HDdbVdAqoOA1 for <>; Sat, 14 Sep 2019 10:23:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2001:558:fe16:19:96:114:154:169]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2B44C12006D for <>; Sat, 14 Sep 2019 10:23:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ([]) by with ESMTP id 9BIgiwj75vvHG9Bm9ixR0E; Sat, 14 Sep 2019 17:23:57 +0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20190202a; t=1568481837; bh=eQw3Wq5VjL5xIegyoZpsXZ5k7cRG0OxHIjVdkkDsJkw=; h=Received:Received:Subject:To:From:Message-ID:Date:MIME-Version: Content-Type; b=JUyoGY9hcG6GuKOahe5VY6SzBIiNoPgzQ6Rr7GOB9w2SsmpAYFoto7zEpSabMkExq uAYBApERX+ZJ7JkiI+gThzjr68jYTvZv+XU+/dx6H9zJuT7NJJrLLTRNAPxZUTxY/m VLNUw4PAfcI15lyF0OktSA1QHBFbxosnf2zjgW2k+yV5b4qo5RpuTF9uxzVljUGPoO kpILET6Vkmi/WBdVEjxflAP+nB9nLNUpDJoFHsLfvKn7ox9l5823eMSiEgrN9SJmK5 FAODj5m48Do3IOmcfKgij1QD66Ddt8xEncUmsRGgNn2H7Scle57zkCYZhZP2JmJQS4 HWT5a+Xz98H9g==
Received: from [IPv6:2601:152:4400:437c:218a:f62b:e62e:109b] ([IPv6:2601:152:4400:437c:218a:f62b:e62e:109b]) by with ESMTPSA id 9Bm5iSdOLe61m9Bm6iGf6U; Sat, 14 Sep 2019 17:23:55 +0000
X-Xfinity-VMeta: sc=-100;st=legit
Subject: Re: [rfc-i] IAB Seeks Feedback on Independent Submissions Editor
To: Stephen Farrell <>, John C Klensin <>
Cc: IETF <>, RFC Interest <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <320B79B1F7F7631266F4C8D5@PSB> <> <> <>
From: Michael StJohns <>
Message-ID: <>
Date: Sat, 14 Sep 2019 13:23:53 -0400
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.9.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Content-Language: en-US
Archived-At: <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 14 Sep 2019 17:24:04 -0000

On 9/13/2019 8:12 PM, Stephen Farrell wrote:
> Mike, (but also addressing John):
> On 14/09/2019 00:51, Mike StJohns wrote:
>> If Adrian will be reappointed regardless of the result of the review,
>> then there’s no obvious reason for gathering review material
>> between now and the expiration of the new appointment period.
> Huh? Gathering, anonymising and providing feedback seems
> like a fairly obvious and entirely normal reason to me.
> Doing that every couple of years regardless of whatever
> else is going on also seems entirely unremarkable to me
> too.

Me too.   But that can either be an end to itself, or feed into a review 
process with consequences...

> Honestly folks - those of you suspicious of the IAB and
> all our doings don't need to be quite so concerned. It
> is just not the case that everything the IAB does is
> shrouded in one of scheming or ineptitude;-) I say that
> as an IAB member who does think the IAB has variously
> messed up recently.

This really isn't so much about trust, but about game theory.

Goal:  Avoid having to find a new ISE at the same time we're resolving 
the RSE issues.

Assumptions:  The current ISE is willing to continue for some period 
with or without a review, and there are no unforeseeable events that 
cause the ISE to be vacant (Adrian falling over dead, etc).

Strategy 1:  Defer the periodic review until after the RSE issues are 
resolved, or in progress to being resolved.

    Probability of Goal Success (POGS): 100%
    Cost: None

Strategy 2: Extend the current ISE's term for a fixed amount (e.g. 6, 
12, 18 or 24 months) without gathering review comments.

   POGS: 100%
   Cost: None

Strategy 3:  Extend the current ISE's term for a fixed amount; gather 
review comments but the extension is guaranteed, the comments do not 
affect the length of the term.

   POGS: ~100% (ISE could decline to be reappointed after feedback)
   Cost:  Cost to community to provide comments; cost to IAB to collate 
them and provide feedback to the ISE.

Strategy 4:  Execute the periodic review on time; reappoint or not 
reappoint the ISE dependent on that process

   POGS:  < 100%   (IAB fails to reach consensus on reappointment, ISE 
declines to be reappointed for whatever reason)
   Cost:  As with strategy 3, plus the possible cost of having to find a 
new RSE.

The first 2 strategies meet the goal without ever having to evaluate the 
probabilities related to human foibles.   The third strategy only 
depends on the ISE's determinations, but given the assumption, probably 
not a risk).  The first two strategies have the lowest cost.  Strategy 1 
vs Strategy 2 is more about how you want to fold in the delay against 
the current model.  Only the 4th strategy has a probability of failure 
(outside of the assumptions I made above).  It doesn't matter how small 
that probability is - I don't see any reason whatsoever for the 
community to take that risk at this time.  Maybe I'm being too risk 
averse, but if I have strategies that are risk free and cost free, why 
wouldn't I take them?

> I can say that there have been no IAB discussions at
> all that I could see leading to any chance whatsoever
> that we cause the same kind of bad outcome as happened
> with the RSE.

Sure - but it's irrelevant to the analysis and it's actually not 
something you can guarantee.    If the IAB wants to avoid even the 
slimmest possibility, maybe choose a different strategy.

Later, Mike

> Does that help assuage any suspicions or worries?
> Cheers,
> S.