Re: NomCom 2017: Call for nominations (IAOC mid-term replacement)

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

--On Friday, September 21, 2018 11:19 -0700 Ted Hardie
<[e-mail]> wrote:

> On Fri, Sep 21, 2018 at 11:13 AM, Bob Hinden
> <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
>> > And to be clear on just how abbreviated, the LLC board is
>> > already
>> meeting and the document which shifts the Trustee selection
>> algorithm is in IETF Last Call.  There is a race condition
>> here that could result in this selection never actually
>> serving.
>> 
>> The trust documents are finishing IASA 2.0 w.g. last call.
>> As far as I can tell none of the IASA 2.0 documents are in
>> IETF last call.

> Bob,
> 
> You're right, my apologies.  I saw the gen-art review pass,
> and I mentally assumed I had missed the IETF Last Call.  It
> turns out it was triggered before the Last Call was issued.
> As those on the list saw, the chairs today indicated that they
> will request publication soon.
> 
> Ted

Bob and Ted,

Independent of the above, I think the key question is still the
one raised by Ted's note and the responses from Leslie and
Glenn: even if this position were to be filled by 24 October
(see https://datatracker.ietf.org/nomcom/2017/ and note that the
schedule there allows zero time for community feedback), would
there be enough functional work for the IAOC to do before it
shuts down entirely to justify the expenditure of candidate,
Nomcom, community, and IESG time to make filling the position
worthwhile?  If the IAOC is, by that time, just a placeholder
until the IETF Trust gets sorted out, I can't imagine that a
vacant position for a few weeks would be harmful enough to
justify a lot of investment.   Perhaps others can imagine that
but, given (especially) Glenn's comments, I think they should
explain.

Otherwise, my conclusion is just about the same as Ted's (and
Leslie's and Glenn's) even if the schedule is a bit longer: we
shouldn't invest significant time in filling that position.

    john