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

Michael StJohns <mstjohns@comcast.net> Sat, 14 September 2019 17:24 UTC

Return-Path: <mstjohns@comcast.net>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 03F87120073 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 14 Sep 2019 10:24:04 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.699
X-Spam-Level:
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: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=comcast.net
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id HDdbVdAqoOA1 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 14 Sep 2019 10:23:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from resqmta-po-10v.sys.comcast.net (resqmta-po-10v.sys.comcast.net [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 ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2B44C12006D for <ietf@ietf.org>; Sat, 14 Sep 2019 10:23:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from resomta-po-16v.sys.comcast.net ([96.114.154.240]) by resqmta-po-10v.sys.comcast.net with ESMTP id 9BIgiwj75vvHG9Bm9ixR0E; Sat, 14 Sep 2019 17:23:57 +0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=comcast.net; 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 resomta-po-16v.sys.comcast.net 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 <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>, John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>
Cc: IETF <ietf@ietf.org>, RFC Interest <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>
References: <156814308493.22374.12964350262219210658.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <e9a47208-c847-85a3-ba1b-2135da1e1b1b@nthpermutation.com> <CA+9kkMAeuokjeraHuL2KJt8REqhxnR2Gow90bZgeazV6GEN78A@mail.gmail.com> <c182bdf6-f592-b512-32ba-6a439f03c16f@nthpermutation.com> <CA+9kkMAFGe5pFMWJnbLP1gKT1KGm50faQqWc1_bViDPnib9oSQ@mail.gmail.com> <320B79B1F7F7631266F4C8D5@PSB> <CA+9kkMAGW=RhCmoF=-MgsrNn_cmmYJoZ22-kNRJwwQX6ZEJujg@mail.gmail.com> <825987F9-B4DF-48F3-9A8B-6DAFC9AF1AF5@comcast.net> <1d7947d4-a2e3-967f-35fb-a14b135a5e16@cs.tcd.ie>
From: Michael StJohns <mstjohns@comcast.net>
Message-ID: <4645f25c-9f9f-2c4f-97c4-76909a2cdae5@comcast.net>
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: <1d7947d4-a2e3-967f-35fb-a14b135a5e16@cs.tcd.ie>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Content-Language: en-US
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/-trHUzOiifV1g3CSw3mh9udUhLE>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ietf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=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.
>