Re: Eliot Lear to Serve as RFC Editor Future Development Program Chair

[John C Klensin <[e-mail]>]

Wes,

I trust Mike's reading of the advice/instructions from the
community to the IAB and what the IAB agreed to do (and then
didn't) more than mine, but I think your note raises a few extra
issues that may be worth identifying.

--On Monday, March 30, 2020 13:47 -0700 Wes Hardaker
<[e-mail]> wrote:

> Michael StJohns <[e-mail]> writes:
> 
>> Given that you were part of the outgoing IAB as well as the
>> incoming one, can you give us some insight as to why that
>> didn't happen already?
> 
> I'm afraid that conversation was in executive session, and it
> would not be prudent of my to share any discussions related to
> the final decision.

Unfortunately, part of what got us into the present situation
--one in which we are, perhaps, trying to have a discussion of
the future of the RFC Series and the RFC Editor Function and
doing so without the guidance and input from an experienced
RSE-- involved the IAB using the executive session mechanism to
exclude Heather from discussions of the Series that might
reasonably have been expected to affect her. From the
perspective of a former IAB member and chair, I think the IAB
has an obligation to be as open and transparent as possible
about its discussions, decisions, and the reasons for them and
that implies that executive sessions should be used rarely and
kept as narrow in focus as possible.  YMMD, but I hope not.

In that context, the decisions about who to select or not select
and why should clearly be confidential and remain that way.  The
decision to appoint only a single chair and, given that there
was not going to be a meeting or session at IETF 107 as
originally announced, the decision to not simply turn over the
whole decision-making process to the new IAB (who, as someone
suggested, might reopen the call for candidates and do some
arm-twisting, do not, it seems to me, deserve that protection. 

Remembering that the list of people from whom the IAB was going
to select is public [1] and that I was on it (and noting that
I'm definitely not speaking for Nevil or Chibuzor) let me open
the kimono a bit further and reveal something that you probably
cannot comfortably reveal.  I didn't want the co-chair job and I
think made the quite clear in my submission to the IAB.  After
some arm-twisting from a few community members and the second
call for candidates, I put my name in to expand the pool and
indicated that I was willing to serve if the IAB though that was
the right answer (and even attached a few conditions to that).
I have no idea why neither Nevil or Chibuzor were selected (if I
had known Nevil's name was in the group, before I put my name
in, I would have kept my name out and endorsed him).  I don't
know why you didn't pick at least one of them but, as others
have pointed out, if you concluded that none of the three of us
were appropriate, you had the option (especially with the IETF
107 deadline removed) of reopening the call for candidates and
pushing things over the wall to the new IAB.


> Personally, I'm actually happy that we only appointed one
> chair, but probably not for the reason you think: this way,
> with the large turn over of IAB members, it turns out that the
> incoming IAB members will have a voice in potentially
> selecting a second chair.  

But that "voice" could have been better accomplished by turning
the whole problem over to them.  The official announcement was
not made until the middle of last week when such a handoff would
have been very convenient.   I assume the decision had been made
when I got a "thanks anyway" note indicating I had not been
selected about ten days earlier, but, by then, it was clear who
was going to make up the new Nomcom, I gather some decisions had
been made by the combined group, and it was very clear there
wasn't going to be a meeting of the Program last week.  The
decision may have been perfectly reasonable, but I think, given
that it violated both the community's advice and the IAB's
commitment when the call for candidates was announced, it would
be reasonable to tell the community why it was made without
hiding behind "executive session".

That is, IMO, especially important in this situation because, if
the "future development" effort (when did it change from
"evolution"?) starts off with the same level of distrust that
characterized some of last year's discussions, clear and useful
results would seem rather unlikely no matter how much effort
Eliot and others put in.

regards,
   john


[1]
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-announce/bpWX2XOhymGc3CS8CByRT1s34J8/