Re: [rfc-i] IAB Seeks Feedback on Independent Submissions Editor
Ted Hardie <ted.ietf@gmail.com> Tue, 17 September 2019 15:09 UTC
Return-Path: <ted.ietf@gmail.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 54EB212006A for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 17 Sep 2019 08:09:31 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.998
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.998 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
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 wP7iA-35lJqd for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 17 Sep 2019 08:09:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-io1-xd30.google.com (mail-io1-xd30.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::d30]) (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 A583D120059 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 17 Sep 2019 08:09:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-io1-xd30.google.com with SMTP id m11so8514813ioo.0 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 17 Sep 2019 08:09:28 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=GMWjNAwhzJccOuGaPVz0JHtaMY2fAfqxiNZd+7cyaHA=; b=QB9HZMAxjFbBl4olIZyHW84UvN20i4DdDlMftNV80HTv6LjgyZa/M7EQSiwXnJq6f+ FHyIUvYfCIHTnwBB9PDqTmTADzJiJpRR/MD6OLaVAEhYD52xou+MysIFkf+ZEvg/Miwa Ugv8UYLGVeeATEygeMbnkkDGBzmLEuT74V72oi4HxCPUKGLjcqJiv+HEZ67z8mwrVYvW izVOejVL+izi6igmA3MWhSpaiNDlVJqsJ3otrHHFVIsgc/HkYcNJAv5R1OwveauE59R+ n0HHlCxB47D5gQVD/e8xO7/Ukqu8yf5ZDbsqsXuD6fCEdEf4SPuw8+ivA0IZPpGfvAF0 r7Rw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=GMWjNAwhzJccOuGaPVz0JHtaMY2fAfqxiNZd+7cyaHA=; b=G+UwULO8olwOOqrIOJq82EO9FbHsFXH0W/l1WRn/dL8BD3wXMEJf78v5cND6txOq01 MeEOz4rw8ZnXodnpwLeiKluNQyhk0QX9OVY3KF90BUUZWA4g5rQpyhpVAD4KR9PJ4D5U XqrDHgjQ9OxyT83fspe2X+5yzmXQbuRfBLEYL79MunXR09HuJJM+SrdlKP4vtBCh0iwj 5DU7+/oa8+Ek8YIYYl1IfM0G/TH+SgDZ9Szz0ff0mK5+kWmrs35sm1k6w8bU2VMsLuvw 00cvSbZteipECO72ms3JGgOPFo1w/WnxqPQgyjux3b29xtyiOXxX8PjRUe8/by9KhvEL PVog==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAWJi3Snfwdo3LwZvSg7Ynu61i8EX6MkUwld1Svdibtt7LdXn6zR CB+S0EQT9iCK+8H5h8YiabmQAEkmAF74I9pji8M=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqyQFZvoFxesMp7mhb77sEhO3z1HDpIWKZ8Dbo4hV7alE/wkHxHurI3PVo8mtm6JEi/1QQ2BTiNRyt8spGy8inY=
X-Received: by 2002:a5e:9319:: with SMTP id k25mr4166156iom.290.1568732967635; Tue, 17 Sep 2019 08:09:27 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
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>
In-Reply-To: <4645f25c-9f9f-2c4f-97c4-76909a2cdae5@comcast.net>
From: Ted Hardie <ted.ietf@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 17 Sep 2019 08:09:01 -0700
Message-ID: <CA+9kkMAzKRgEV2YCaGW4ZxqivQ+BCy4aykcmQRbUjH+f_PGpOQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [rfc-i] IAB Seeks Feedback on Independent Submissions Editor
To: Michael StJohns <mstjohns@comcast.net>
Cc: Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>, John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>, RFC Interest <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>, IETF <ietf@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000048936b0592c11bc8"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/tXXxmBmbv5e8SDE3d83mF336TSg>
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: Tue, 17 Sep 2019 15:09:32 -0000
Hi Mike, On Sat, Sep 14, 2019 at 10:24 AM Michael StJohns <mstjohns@comcast.net> wrote: > > > Goal: Avoid having to find a new ISE at the same time we're resolving > the RSE issues. > > This is a very simplified view of the goal here, and if you start with that simplification, you can end up missing the other things that need to get done. To illustrate this, let me highlight it using a different phrasing and different position. The ISE is a stream manager, with responsibility for the output of the Independent Stream. Christian Huitema is the stream manager for the IAB stream. If we phrased this as "Avoid having to change stream managers at the same time we're resolving the issues raised when the RSE declined to accept a new contract", then it seems logical that we should exempt Christian from NomCom review, even though his term is up and he would normally be renewed at this time. After all, one of the major theories here is that the stream managers could convene the process for updating the RFC model--changing them out midstream would clearly be disruptive. Of course, if that dragged on, we might also have to exempt Alissa, since she's the stream manager for the IETF stream. You see the problem, of course; exempting them from NomCom renewal means that the goal of avoiding potential issues with the RFC Series results collides with a different goal--getting community review of leadership positions on a regular basis. In this particular case, doing the review now for the renewal due in February means we will have the comments in hand before IETF 106 and can move through the rest of the process without colliding with whatever next steps are decided there. That's why I continue to believe that this review, conducted at its normal time, is less risky than delaying it. regards, Ted Hardie
- Re: [rfc-i] IAB Seeks Feedback on Independent Sub… Michael StJohns
- Re: [rfc-i] IAB Seeks Feedback on Independent Sub… Ted Hardie
- Re: [rfc-i] IAB Seeks Feedback on Independent Sub… Michael StJohns
- Re: [rfc-i] IAB Seeks Feedback on Independent Sub… Ted Hardie
- Re: [rfc-i] IAB Seeks Feedback on Independent Sub… John C Klensin
- Re: [rfc-i] IAB Seeks Feedback on Independent Sub… Ted Hardie
- Re: [rfc-i] IAB Seeks Feedback on Independent Sub… John C Klensin
- Re: [rfc-i] IAB Seeks Feedback on Independent Sub… Randy Bush
- Re: [rfc-i] IAB Seeks Feedback on Independent Sub… Richard Barnes
- Re: [rfc-i] IAB Seeks Feedback on Independent Sub… Eric Rescorla
- Re: [rfc-i] IAB Seeks Feedback on Independent Sub… Mike StJohns
- Re: [rfc-i] IAB Seeks Feedback on Independent Sub… Stephen Farrell
- Re: [rfc-i] IAB Seeks Feedback on Independent Sub… Randy Bush
- Re: [rfc-i] IAB Seeks Feedback on Independent Sub… Randy Bush
- Re: [rfc-i] IAB Seeks Feedback on Independent Sub… Melinda Shore
- ietf@ list as a proxy for community opinion (not) Keith Moore
- Re: [rfc-i] IAB Seeks Feedback on Independent Sub… John C Klensin
- Re: [rfc-i] IAB Seeks Feedback on Independent Sub… Nico Williams
- Re: [rfc-i] IAB Seeks Feedback on Independent Sub… Randy Bush
- Re: [rfc-i] IAB Seeks Feedback on Independent Sub… Michael StJohns
- Re: [rfc-i] IAB Seeks Feedback on Independent Sub… John C Klensin
- Re: [rfc-i] IAB Seeks Feedback on Independent Sub… Ted Hardie