Re: [rfc-i] IAB Seeks Feedback on Independent Submissions Editor

John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com> Sat, 14 September 2019 18:57 UTC

Return-Path: <john-ietf@jck.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D0D821200CE for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 14 Sep 2019 11:57:46 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.898
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.898 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=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 umFbwMoJMB4j for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 14 Sep 2019 11:57:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from bsa2.jck.com (bsa2.jck.com [70.88.254.51]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9E3E4120043 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Sat, 14 Sep 2019 11:57:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [198.252.137.10] (helo=PSB) by bsa2.jck.com with esmtp (Exim 4.82 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <john-ietf@jck.com>) id 1i9DEq-000COc-Iw; Sat, 14 Sep 2019 14:57:40 -0400
Date: Sat, 14 Sep 2019 14:57:34 -0400
From: John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>
To: Michael StJohns <mstjohns@comcast.net>, Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>
cc: IETF <ietf@ietf.org>, RFC Interest <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>
Subject: Re: [rfc-i] IAB Seeks Feedback on Independent Submissions Editor
Message-ID: <932F3FE9704669D2FCC39917@PSB>
In-Reply-To: <4645f25c-9f9f-2c4f-97c4-76909a2cdae5@comcast.net>
References: <156814308493.22374.12964350262219210658.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <e9a47208-c847-85a3-ba1b-2135da1e1b1b@nthpermutation.com> <CA+9kkMAeuokjeraHuL2KJt8REqhxnR2Gow90bZgeazV6GEN78A@mail.gmail.com> <c182bdf6-f592-b512-32ba-6a439f03c16f@nthpermutation.com> <CA+9kkMAFGe5pFMWJnbLP1gKT1KGm50faQqWc1_bViDPnib9oSQ@mail.gmail.com> <320B79B1F7F7631266F4C8D5@PSB> <CA+9kkMAGW=RhCmoF=-MgsrNn_cmmYJoZ22-kNRJwwQX6ZEJujg@mail.gmail.com> <825987F9-B4DF-48F3-9A8B-6DAFC9AF1AF5@comcast.net> <1d7947d4-a2e3-967f-35fb-a14b135a5e16@cs.tcd.ie> <4645f25c-9f9f-2c4f-97c4-76909a2cdae5@comcast.net>
X-Mailer: Mulberry/4.0.8 (Win32)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline
X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 198.252.137.10
X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: john-ietf@jck.com
X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on bsa2.jck.com); SAEximRunCond expanded to false
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/nd-0hsGo-aJM1_ESG0VpudD8zkM>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: Sat, 14 Sep 2019 18:57:47 -0000

Let me add, essentially from my earlier note but Mike's format
and style of analysis:

Strategy 3A:  Extend the current ISE's term for a fixed amount
(preferably 24 months because going through these exercises very
often incurs it own cost and potential collateral damage) now;
gather feedback ("review comments" becomes an incorrect
description) after the RSE issues are resolved, or in progress
to being resolved. 
	
	 POGS: 100% (ISE is simply reappointed now and the
	 feedback is forward-facing and presumably helpful to the
   ISE as advertised but not about evaluation or renewal)
   Cost:  Cost to community to provide comments; cost to 
   IAB to collate them and provide feedback to the ISE.

I'm ok with either this or Mike's 2 or 3, but this would seem to
combine the best features of both if the IAB and/or the ISE
believe that a formal effort to collect feedback would be
helpful.

best,
 john

--On Saturday, September 14, 2019 13:23 -0400 Michael StJohns
<mstjohns@comcast.net>; wrote:

> On 9/13/2019 8:12 PM, Stephen Farrell wrote:
>> Mike, (but also addressing John):
>> 
>> On 14/09/2019 00:51, Mike StJohns wrote:
>>> If Adrian will be reappointed regardless of the result of
>>> the review, then there’s no obvious reason for
>>> gathering review material between now and the expiration of
>>> the new appointment period.
>> Huh? Gathering, anonymising and providing feedback seems
>> like a fairly obvious and entirely normal reason to me.
>> Doing that every couple of years regardless of whatever
>> else is going on also seems entirely unremarkable to me
>> too.
> 
> Me too.   But that can either be an end to itself, or feed
> into a review process with consequences...
> 
> 
>> 
>> Honestly folks - those of you suspicious of the IAB and
>> all our doings don't need to be quite so concerned. It
>> is just not the case that everything the IAB does is
>> shrouded in one of scheming or ineptitude;-) I say that
>> as an IAB member who does think the IAB has variously
>> messed up recently.
> 
> This really isn't so much about trust, but about game theory.
> 
> 
> Goal:  Avoid having to find a new ISE at the same time we're
> resolving the RSE issues.
> 
> Assumptions:  The current ISE is willing to continue for some
> period with or without a review, and there are no
> unforeseeable events that cause the ISE to be vacant (Adrian
> falling over dead, etc).
> 
> Strategy 1:  Defer the periodic review until after the RSE
> issues are resolved, or in progress to being resolved.
> 
>     Probability of Goal Success (POGS): 100%
>     Cost: None
> 
> Strategy 2: Extend the current ISE's term for a fixed amount
> (e.g. 6, 12, 18 or 24 months) without gathering review
> comments.
> 
>    POGS: 100%
>    Cost: None
> 
> Strategy 3:  Extend the current ISE's term for a fixed
> amount; gather review comments but the extension is
> guaranteed, the comments do not affect the length of the term.
> 
>    POGS: ~100% (ISE could decline to be reappointed after
> feedback)
>    Cost:  Cost to community to provide comments; cost to IAB
> to collate them and provide feedback to the ISE.
> 
> Strategy 4:  Execute the periodic review on time; reappoint
> or not reappoint the ISE dependent on that process
> 
>    POGS:  < 100%   (IAB fails to reach consensus on
> reappointment, ISE declines to be reappointed for whatever
> reason)
>    Cost:  As with strategy 3, plus the possible cost of
> having to find a new RSE.
> 
> 
> The first 2 strategies meet the goal without ever having to
> evaluate the probabilities related to human foibles.   The
> third strategy only depends on the ISE's determinations, but
> given the assumption, probably not a risk).  The first two
> strategies have the lowest cost.  Strategy 1 vs Strategy 2 is
> more about how you want to fold in the delay against the
> current model.  Only the 4th strategy has a probability of
> failure (outside of the assumptions I made above).  It
> doesn't matter how small that probability is - I don't see any
> reason whatsoever for the community to take that risk at this
> time.  Maybe I'm being too risk averse, but if I have
> strategies that are risk free and cost free, why wouldn't I
> take them?
> 
> 
>> 
>> I can say that there have been no IAB discussions at
>> all that I could see leading to any chance whatsoever
>> that we cause the same kind of bad outcome as happened
>> with the RSE.
> 
> Sure - but it's irrelevant to the analysis and it's actually
> not something you can guarantee.    If the IAB wants to
> avoid even the slimmest possibility, maybe choose a different
> strategy.
> 
> Later, Mike
> 
> 
>> 
>> Does that help assuage any suspicions or worries?
>> 
>> Cheers,
>> S.
>> 
>