Re: I-D Action: draft-hardie-iaoc-iab-update-00.txt

[Andrew Sullivan <[e-mail]>]

Hi,

On Wed, Feb 03, 2016 at 10:31:14PM -0500, Michael StJohns wrote:
> The position of the IAB, IETF and ISOC chairs are more or less stable.

The IETF and ISOC chairs have nothing to do with this draft, so I'll
set that aside.  The position of IAB member is more stable than IAB
chair, since the IAB chair is always appointed for one year.  

> years.  If you desire to swap the IAB chair for some other member of the
> IAB, you will need to address that stability issue,

Surely, then, the way to do this is for the IAB to appoint someone for
a year, since that is the expected lifetime of the _ex officio_
membership anyway?

> and, given that BCP101
> is NOT an IAB document, you will have to convince the community that your
> proposed changes are in the best interest of the community, and not just in
> the best interests of the IAB or the IAB chair.

Yes, which is why the draft is not intending to be an IAB stream
document.  I thought that was obvious.

> You *do* have a tool under IAB control to assign an IAB member to the IAOC:

But that's irrelevant to the current draft, which is not about the
person the IAB appoints but about an appointment that currently
happens as an accident of some other position.

> 2) Why should the IAB ex-officio member not necessarily be the IAB chair?
> How does the selection of the non-IAB chair ex-officio member occur in a way
> that serves the IETF's interests?

I don't understand why people keep putting the burden of proof that
way.  Why should the IAB _ex officio_ member be the IAB chair? BCP101
makes no effort to justify that, as near as I can tell, and actually
calls out a reason not to do this: " While there are no hard rules
regarding how the IAB and the IESG should select members of the IAOC,
such appointees need not be current IAB or IESG members (and probably
should not be, if only to avoid overloading the existing leadership)."

In any case, I think there's more than one reform that might be nice,
and it seems to me that those who think we need to solve a different
problem than the one Ted, Russ, and I are suggesting ought to produce
their own draft, so that different approaches can be evaluated.

Best regards,

A

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
[e-mail]