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

Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com> Fri, 13 September 2019 19:56 UTC

Return-Path: <ekr@rtfm.com>
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 EAB40120132 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 13 Sep 2019 12:56:10 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.896
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.896 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=rtfm-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com
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 EXBRE6SOpZ2O for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 13 Sep 2019 12:56:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-lf1-x133.google.com (mail-lf1-x133.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::133]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 026D21200FF for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 13 Sep 2019 12:56:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-lf1-x133.google.com with SMTP id d10so23013501lfi.0 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 13 Sep 2019 12:56:06 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=rtfm-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=fD4ja6/Rp4QkKJ0uyBlTwXC9HltwOMDqG/h68BEVUMM=; b=O+jUnzcAoz2yIgMI5+/y8PG7Towr5agy8HMjL/S+Q3OsO/uEZEneZOImUjHaCmaLOS mHJQrm/rmdGahKPkBJBqkJxNVbA8GhWaZAuc3cEhUMCgdOlYEJn04BxW4GvHo/CdY0KL AO3qleqDwnmY1srNTaE/OksnQRHCkwIWNb99/EyQTH1GU9pSoh21VkAsUVzisesvmP2D oZenJ+tmQtkHz7FvV5q91mUu3WIwHMZ2Owb4sR2sJj6Ry6UAlXix+RV1qrMAWfUwLIuL 4sS1YJyM3jdwSmT62EIp6e+Jl5UzlEEx1zsZcAeKHL02pizEEPJapslLeYoHua3ZSXzn 72aw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=fD4ja6/Rp4QkKJ0uyBlTwXC9HltwOMDqG/h68BEVUMM=; b=P5mlUfKhhyY+bbfC3pUVROuYPgxoIRRkGzbUugPtMJSeaK8bJs//w1mUIrivE8Z99f Krw8WddsxxkgXVk2qWUBfrCVW24bRpaIsuOwCokm5gLgQ/9A21E7hQE5F6iot1/khPT9 K5v2C+ZrmSTibV6nEze5qZ86F2fUFWSzUPGqO9toCyb4GXtZPBAlJmNZMhYfRQqo+GWW UzLN3TqDaUOru6KhAUMEIZqFO8fBJTcf8vZdJZsgNRHoOm/2Ij9jldkrX6k1YQZel8j1 U1FUc9Gv0iODQZE3U2FI7xFix2vj49b9KUjiuCdk9iWvB7Bo4xBKB3MwpmiPv+tuRnFB 1Jjw==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAW86EPzB3XdFofAepI0vaLLA2IsSyJiDQphidYNi2pw0t/dArCo nAIlyM6rqR44jEj8GA9Iosx1sOLhySH4Lu0YCRhYZg==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqwlUSGPM6E8fe4sy81TxCxgJWyKzlkWrWE94osLTsoeJzpRgprfPGzKq63eH6fkTLAx7Ikie2tlWHZPYZr1YkU=
X-Received: by 2002:ac2:5586:: with SMTP id v6mr31613202lfg.180.1568404565198; Fri, 13 Sep 2019 12:56:05 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
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>
In-Reply-To: <CA+9kkMAGW=RhCmoF=-MgsrNn_cmmYJoZ22-kNRJwwQX6ZEJujg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com>
Date: Fri, 13 Sep 2019 12:55:28 -0700
Message-ID: <CABcZeBO5m+obV85qmasmvkzOUPKHVQRo=mVLsJx7yAK8J+E3pg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [rfc-i] IAB Seeks Feedback on Independent Submissions Editor
To: Ted Hardie <ted.ietf@gmail.com>
Cc: John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>, Cindy Morgan <execd@iab.org>, IAB Chair <iab-chair@iab.org>, RFC Interest <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>, IETF <ietf@ietf.org>, Michael StJohns <msj@nthpermutation.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000f91aea059274a472"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/IKvW6scYFrpU22Tw-MEsdRQJQbY>
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: Fri, 13 Sep 2019 19:56:11 -0000

On Fri, Sep 13, 2019 at 8:08 AM Ted Hardie <ted.ietf@gmail.com>; wrote:

> On Fri, Sep 13, 2019 at 5:26 AM John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>; wrote:
>
>> Ted,
>>
>> While I appreciate your reflections on what is going on here,
>> including sticking to expected dates and process and the
>> reassurance that the IAB is not expecting a change or to run a
>> call for candidates, I have to agree with Mike that the timing
>> is exquisitely unfortunate.
>>
>> I have a strong impression that this process will run to completion prior
> to IETF 106.  Given the current timelines for other community discussion,
> it seems to me that moving the process later is higher risk than running it
> now.  I understand that Mike's views differ here.
>
>
>> As has been said many times before, one of the IETF's (and
>> IAB's) strengths traditionally has been our ability and
>> willingness to make adjustments and do the right thing rather
>> than taking the position that the procedures are the procedures
>> and we just need to follow them no matter what.  In this case,
>> it seems to me that it would have plausible for the IAB to have
>> had a quiet conversation with Adrian (some weeks ago -- the IAB
>> obviously knew this was coming) as to whether postponing this
>> review would cause any inconvenience to him and, if not, asking
>> the community if, under the circumstances, there were serious
>> objections to doing so.  That would have been orderly, it would
>> not have seriously violated community expectations (especially
>> if done a few months ago) and it would have been, at least in my
>> opinion, a much better way to handle things.   I wonder if it
>> was even considered.
>>
>> The timing was discussed; since the appointment is until February of next
> year, there was some leeway without changing any community expectations.
> Asking Adrian earlier rather than later seemed important in order to handle
> the case that he was not willing to continue.  Since he was willing to
> continue, that was fortunately avoided, but there seemed no reason to delay
> asking for community input.
>
> As Mike raised an objection to the current process, I have sent an e-vote
> to the IAB asking if they wish to reconsider the process in light of the
> objection; as I noted to him, I personally believe that this running now
> adds to the stability of the system rather than subtracts from it.  If the
> IAB wants to reconsider I will, of course, go with that new theory.
>

For the record [0], I agree with this view.

-Ekr

[0] To the extent to which one believes -- mistakenly, IMO -- that traffic
on the ietf@ list ought to be taken as a proxy for the views of the
community.

>
> regards,
>
> Ted Hardie
>
>
>
>> thanks,
>>    john
>>
>>
>> --On Thursday, September 12, 2019 21:06 -0700 Ted Hardie
>> <ted.ietf@gmail.com>; wrote:
>>
>> > Hi Mike
>> > (snipped some earlier discussion to make this more readable)
>> >
>> > On Thu, Sep 12, 2019 at 2:09 PM Michael StJohns
>> > <msj@nthpermutation.com>; wrote:
>> >
>> >> I went and reviewed the various emails since Nevil's original
>> >> appointment, and what I realized was that his "term" was
>> >> directly related to his contract to perform the ISE work. He
>> >> had some sort of MOU starting 10 Feb 2010.  The 2/6/12
>> >> announcement of his reappointment has him with a 3 year
>> >> contract term beginning around 15 Feb 2012.  He got 2
>> >> extensions of 2 years and 1 year (the 2 year extension was
>> >> granted nearly 4 months in advance), all with end/start date
>> >> of 14/15 Feb.
>> >>
>> >> Adrian got the appointment on 18 Oct 2017 for a 15 Feb 2018
>> >> start, but AFAIK, he's not on contract for a specific term.
>> >> (Feel free to correct me on that - I can't actually find
>> >> anything that points one way or the other). While you're
>> >>   correct that the appointment message said "2 year term",
>> >> there's no actual underlying document (e.g. contract or RFC)
>> >> that requires such a term.
>> >>
>> >> As you know, the ISE is an unpaid position, so the IAB did
>> >> not ask Adrian
>> > (or the other candidates) to agree to an unbounded term;
>> > setting it at two years is a way to ensure that there is a
>> > regular cadence to asking the incumbent if they can still
>> > dedicate the time.  Adrian has agreed that he still can afford
>> > to do so, as I noted in my previous email.
>> >
>> > The IAB is not conducting search; it's asking the community
>> > for feedback on the incumbent.  That's  how the community can
>> > weigh in on extending the term, and, as I'm sure you saw in
>> > your review, it's pretty much the standard way of making sure
>> > the community is consulted for appointments like this.
>> >
>> >> It seems to me that selecting an arbitrary date for a review
>> >> might be a useful approach in normal times, but now - not so
>> >> much.  I think that date has been overtaken by events, and
>> >> the IAB should - in consultation with Adrian of course - set
>> >> a review date and term expiration date a bit further in the
>> >> future, either changing that date now, or agreeing to defer
>> >> setting a date until the RSE discussion is a bit more settled.
>> >>
>> > I believe it is in no one's interest to have the RSE and ISE
>> > positions both
>> >> up for grabs at the same time.
>> >>
>> > As I pointed out, the IAB is not conducting a search; the ISE
>> > position "is not up for grabs".
>> >
>> >> If there's some underlying reason that can't be waived (e.g.
>> >> contract), then let the community know what your firm
>> >> constraints are.
>> >>
>> > The guiding principle here is to continue consulting the
>> > incumbent ISE on his availability and the community on how
>> > it's going at the pace that was previously set out.
>> >
>> > Speaking as a member of the IAB, not as its chair, I believe
>> > the community guidance has been in part to avoid surprises;
>> > changing the term now or avoiding community consultation would
>> > both be surprises.  Given that we have the time to run the
>> > usual process and a willing incumbent, I'd personally rather
>> > do that.
>> >
>> > As chair, I will ensure that your feedback on the process will
>> > be heard by the IAB.  Should the consensus be to change the
>> > process, I will be happy to go along with that consensus.  In
>> > either event, I urge you and other readers to provide
>> > feedback; even if the process does change, Adrian has
>> > indicated that he is interested in whatever feedback can be
>> > channeled back to him, so it will serve a good purpose in any
>> > event.
>> >
>> > regards,
>> > Ted Hardie
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>