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

[Michael StJohns <[e-mail]>]

See below

On 2/6/2016 2:06 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> Mike,
>
> The IAB has oversight responsibility for the RFC Editor. The IAOC oversees
> the IAD, who manages contracts for the community, including the RFC editing
> contracts. I therefore believe that having a voting IAB member among the voting
> members of the IAOC is appropriate. Otherwise the IAB doesn't have a clear
> "chain of command" (or, alternatively, "the buck stops here") linkage to
> that aspect of the RFC Editor.
>
> A similar argument shows why the IAB should be directly linked to the
> IETF Trust, which holds the rights in RFCs and may come to hold the rights in
> IANA data.
>
> Neither argument shows that the person needs to be the IAB Chair, IMHO.
>
> I regard this as quite disjoint from how the ordinary members of the IAOC
> are appointed. Splitting that job between the IESG, the IAB and the Nomcom
> was a fairly arbitrary choice, but I think the Nomcom has a big enough
> job already.
>
>      Brian
>
>

Hi Brian -

IMO, I think you've made a good argument for retaining at least one IAB 
member on the IAOC, an incomplete argument for why that member need not 
be the IAB chair and a very poor argument as to why the IAB should 
continue to appoint a second person.

WRT the incomplete argument I'd ask the current (and past members) of 
the IAOC to comment on the following questions (to paraphrase Leslie's 
note quite a bit):

     Are there specific benefits to the IAOC to having the IAB chair 
continue as a member of the IAOC that would not be met if he/she were 
replaced by another member of the IAB?
     Are there specific issues the IAOC might encounter if the IAB chair 
were not a member of the IAOC and how could those issues be mitigated?
     [If you were still on the IAOC,] Would you object to the change and 
for what reasons?

So far I *think* I haven't seen anyone currently on the IAOC comment on 
the above.

For the poor argument related to why the IAB should continue to appoint 
a second person - seriously??  "The Nomcom has a big enough job 
already".   I might find this a reasonable argument if (and pretty much 
only if) the Nomcom weren't already required to (advertise for and 
interview and ) appoint an IAOC member every term.   AFAICT, having the 
Nomcom change that to two (or even three) per year and removing the need 
for the other two (or three - not quite sure about ISOC) bodies to 
advertise, interview, and select would reduce the workload on the IAB, 
IESG and maybe ISOC without actually increasing the workload of the 
Nomcom much if at all. [This is based on the observation that the same 
people will probably apply to the IAB, IESG and Nomcom solicitations and 
if all three bodies are doing their jobs in a complete manner similar to 
what the Nomcom should be doing, that seems like a lot of redundancy in 
the process.]


Later, Mike