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

Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org> Thu, 11 February 2016 03:47 UTC

Return-Path: <barryleiba.mailing.lists@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 807A31A8A41 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 10 Feb 2016 19:47:01 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.278
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.278 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=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 F6SdCUyLxnSS for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 10 Feb 2016 19:47:00 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-io0-x22b.google.com (mail-io0-x22b.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c06::22b]) (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 1C3FC1A8A3F for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 10 Feb 2016 19:47:00 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-io0-x22b.google.com with SMTP id f81so42735283iof.0 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 10 Feb 2016 19:47:00 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject :from:to:cc:content-type; bh=WkuWSYhXGz/2IxbsVbAWXRl97k4ev2dyxm/6lpvRmPI=; b=iPoJ08437zTJdFbFFT9+029gPCl64tWRZqvkmqEyBaLnaGWjIsFNC7OQleb2BMQFxX f66LpXxWf6Lq6dA7Cm2+UKdB5haUqqwjXV21MqrCZavJYPTyuGKet8HEoquwRjVG0U7+ HApuTKaWB30H3ejTRMR7Df5EHdFymvHbPgSwDQ1xOw9Rd6ZUcFyuhn+cOp8Qswvba3SD Gs625Uheh5+NpzCV7eeA7PpeCTi3SVpupX0LVE/1YyAKSCOEbID6oap7NBkdf1TA8J+R 8tZNzCmHZvZYjYnrizyhMPmYIwGFNm6QkEneH5+QtpaaneQgjyWNLGEmyeC1WBEzO4ee Slgw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=WkuWSYhXGz/2IxbsVbAWXRl97k4ev2dyxm/6lpvRmPI=; b=PQAF3ABZZmfZb7Bi7P8iQ3g9jK02Hl3B9Y2vOCR3UQXict/pZESdjvQuKqRSp31TgC QPfMTaS0KPL/KqEv0a5TxQELvZlG9FqzNK5qQFsoxC+JjL0cxJVPY8Meyj3n/P1oh2tm LMdEw+Zno6Ef82vOKK3XdlQ0miw4hhI++CvrstuybDdU+5w4ryKO1GPd+UHLQe3mBPMI LZ1oq1YDPGWYwih4mC1+iAkJxGx+ESjpYA2/oJNIwsTS0mfdVjYZe2wMSWEDL4tRjvv2 aMkMpULHhHEPv3BWse4kPlv6FvZlgLxqNG/7KFZqDm2wNJNrOZ8e5bhbhnW0hd5P1vDW yXmw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AG10YOTuaHD+LRL4WoaYGjGVcCsUHXJ8qyNsBNX/TkAcpXD7nmheYtCPu9QZYQR3YlMOr4ek0aWjubklCmMDwA==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.107.19.193 with SMTP id 62mr48526901iot.41.1455162419483; Wed, 10 Feb 2016 19:46:59 -0800 (PST)
Sender: barryleiba.mailing.lists@gmail.com
Received: by 10.107.184.195 with HTTP; Wed, 10 Feb 2016 19:46:59 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <56B12368.2070609@comcast.net>
References: <20160202182036.26498.27650.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <56B10131.7040603@gmail.com> <C8F5EEE2CF0CBC7E3BB44477@JcK-HP8200.jck.com> <56B12368.2070609@comcast.net>
Date: Wed, 10 Feb 2016 22:46:59 -0500
X-Google-Sender-Auth: Wwz_o0WxCIQUiHMHchA6MHwSzlU
Message-ID: <CAC4RtVBrtxyro+2EOSAOop7xDr-z7xu97kuVzPzaFoBzj_5jTg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: I-D Action: draft-hardie-iaoc-iab-update-00.txt
From: Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>
To: Michael StJohns <mstjohns@comcast.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/VByDFN9sK3227Opvcg7gJ1XFWM8>
Cc: IETF discussion list <ietf@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: Thu, 11 Feb 2016 03:47:01 -0000

> Let me suggest that instead of delegating the IAB chair responsibilities we,
> instead, change the ex-officio status that the various chairs currently have
> to observer status, change the organizational appointees to permit
> (require?) appointment from their appointing organizations, and  also add
> two or three additional permanent members to the IAOC, those members to be
> selected in alternate years by the Nomcom.

First, I think it would be entirely reasonable to add two voting
members to the IAOC for a couple of reasons:

1. Temporary absences will be less disruptive.  I'm not sure how much
of an issue that has actually been on the IAOC, though, so I don't
know how important this is.

2. Adding two NomCom-selected voting members would increase the pool
of potential IAOC chairs to seven (from five).  Making sure there's
someone on the IAOC who is eligible to chair, willing to chair, and
capable of chairing is sometimes a difficult issue now.

Now, a variant here:
In addition to that, the IESG has chatted in the past about ceding its
appointment to the NomCom, and there was significant support in the
IESG for such a move (which, yes, would require updating RFC 4071).
Our thought in the discussion was twofold:

1. RFC 4071 explicitly says that we are not appointing an IAOC member
to represent the IESG in any way: we're making the appointment, and
the IAB is making theirs, but once the appointments are made those
members act in the same way as the NomCom-appointed ones.

2. The idea that the IESG should have its own appointment because it
will look at the candidates differently and will pick with different
criteria than the NomCom would is valid in theory, but has little or
no applicability in practice.  In many ways, it would be better to let
the NomCom balance its choices while selecting two (or even three)
IAOC members at the same time.

There could be one difficulty: If we were to move both the IESG and
IAB appointments to the NomCom *and* add two new NomCom appointments,
the NomComs would be selecting three IAOC members each year.  Finding
suitable candidates would be a challenge.  A big one.  On the other
hand, the IESG's list of candidates usually includes the incumbent and
the volunteers that the NomCom didn't select, so, again, there isn't a
real change there in practice.

Barry