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