Re: NomCom 2019 Call for Community Feedback

Benjamin Kaduk <kaduk@mit.edu> Tue, 05 November 2019 09:24 UTC

Return-Path: <kaduk@mit.edu>
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 AAF8D120137 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 5 Nov 2019 01:24:29 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.199
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.199 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 Y1uiAx6WSPIk; Tue, 5 Nov 2019 01:24:27 -0800 (PST)
Received: from outgoing.mit.edu (outgoing-auth-1.mit.edu [18.9.28.11]) (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 BE8B5120860; Tue, 5 Nov 2019 01:24:27 -0800 (PST)
Received: from kduck.mit.edu ([24.16.140.251]) (authenticated bits=56) (User authenticated as kaduk@ATHENA.MIT.EDU) by outgoing.mit.edu (8.14.7/8.12.4) with ESMTP id xA59OMQ5028138 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Tue, 5 Nov 2019 04:24:25 -0500
Date: Tue, 5 Nov 2019 01:24:22 -0800
From: Benjamin Kaduk <kaduk@mit.edu>
To: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Cc: "nomcom-chair-2019@ietf.org" <nomcom-chair-2019@ietf.org>, ietf <ietf@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: NomCom 2019 Call for Community Feedback
Message-ID: <20191105092422.GA61969@kduck.mit.edu>
References: <157279399807.13506.13363770981495597049.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <0EF64763-BA25-468A-B387-91445A61D318@gmail.com> <CAJU8_nUovmFmgNiYx0ez_1f+GPdU9xGViDYWfowEEomrn0pyDw@mail.gmail.com> <alpine.LRH.2.21.1911040841160.27600@bofh.nohats.ca> <CE06CC6D-E37F-4C90-B782-D14B1D715D4B@cable.comcast.com> <38E47448-63B4-4A5D-8A9D-3AB890EBDDDD@akamai.com> <09886edb-4302-b309-9eaa-f016c4487128@gmail.com> <0053C5D9-E4D7-4BE0-9B73-3B7FC25561FB@akamai.com> <f0069562-5b4b-3a08-124f-1a8d24dfd0cd@cs.tcd.ie> <e7ebf607-cbf8-8ebf-9dca-0aec96ff517d@gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <e7ebf607-cbf8-8ebf-9dca-0aec96ff517d@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.12.1 (2019-06-15)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/04bi_Ab98F_0LMeHiMCbvrEyqYk>
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: Tue, 05 Nov 2019 09:24:30 -0000

On Tue, Nov 05, 2019 at 11:21:42AM +1300, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> On 05-Nov-19 10:39, Stephen Farrell wrote:
> > 
> > 
> > On 04/11/2019 21:33, Salz, Rich wrote:
> >> So something more lasting, like an IAB program?  YAKOBE?
> > 
> > Heh:-)
> > 
> > To be clear: No, restructuring the IESG is so very
> > definitely not the IAB's job.
> 
> A draft in front of gendispatch might be the correct approach,
> if there are any specific proposals. Although, reading
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2026#section-6.1.2, it's not
> clear to me that any process changes are needed, since
> nowhere is it specified that IESG members should perform
> detailed technical reviews themselves. As far as I can see,
> they could stop doing that tomorrow without breaking any
> process rules, and choose to rely entirely on the various
> review teams.

The past few generic IESG job descriptions (as sent to Nomcom) have had
some interesting text in this front (quoting from
https://datatracker.ietf.org/nomcom/2019/expertise/#pos-iesg-members):

% An AD should be able to personally review every Internet-Draft that they
% sponsor. For other Internet-Drafts an AD needs to be satisfied that
% adequate review has taken place, though many ADs personally review these
% documents as well. 

That does, of course, leave the question open of what constitutes "adequate
review", but it seems highly likely that the intent is to allow
directorates to satisfy it.

-Ben