[Mod-discuss] Re: one last issue from my side

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

--On Thursday, September 11, 2025 09:30 -0700 Lisa Dusseault
<[e-mail]> wrote:

> I am seeing fair agreement about how many people we'd like to see
> on the mod team, but what I'm having trouble discerning in the
> answers what folks think about how much we should constrain the mod
> team size in the draft. Where should "5 team members" be on the
> spectrum of proposal --> recommendation --> requirement.

Lisa,

Setting my other concerns aside for the moment (I have been tied up
almost all day and haven't yet read the notes/responses to me)...

I think the answer is close to "recommendation", noting that
recommendation is to the IESG as the appointing body.   For reasons
discussed earlier, going much below five is likely to be a problem
and going much above that would probably be unwieldy.  However, if
the IESG understands the reasoning, I don't think it would be helpful
or necessary for them to stop at four if they could only find that
many qualified candidates, nor do I think it would be necessary or
helpful to force them to stop at five and agonize about the last pick
if they had six very qualified candidates.

On the other hand, I wouldn't mind seeing "at least three or four" as
a requirement and that may be the source of the confusion.

Since the document, AFAICT, lays out no requirements for voting
within the moderation team, I don't see any requirement for an odd
number either.  That view is reinforced by the observation that, if
there were a requirement for moderation team voting and a requirement
for a odd number, having a member recluse themselves from a
particular decision because of a perceived conflict of interest
(something we should always allow whether the document spells it out
or not), that would put the team back to an even number.   No magical
mathematical solutions there.

So, recommendation of a target of 5 with flexibility for the IESG if
they think it is needed.    And, as I suggested before, probably an
option for them to do something else if they conclude that the call
for candidates and selection process did not go adequately well.

    john