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

Hi Mike
(snipped some earlier discussion to make this more readable)

On Thu, Sep 12, 2019 at 2:09 PM Michael StJohns <msj@nthpermutation.com>
wrote:

> I went and reviewed the various emails since Nevil's original appointment,
> and what I realized was that his "term" was directly related to his
> contract to perform the ISE work. He had some sort of MOU starting 10 Feb
> 2010.  The 2/6/12 announcement of his reappointment has him with a 3 year
> contract term beginning around 15 Feb 2012.  He got 2 extensions of 2 years
> and 1 year (the 2 year extension was granted nearly 4 months in advance),
> all with end/start date of 14/15 Feb.
>
> Adrian got the appointment on 18 Oct 2017 for a 15 Feb 2018 start, but
> AFAIK, he's not on contract for a specific term.  (Feel free to correct me
> on that - I can't actually find anything that points one way or the other).
>   While you're correct that the appointment message said "2 year term",
> there's no actual underlying document (e.g. contract or RFC) that requires
> such a term.
>
> As you know, the ISE is an unpaid position, so the IAB did not ask Adrian
(or the other candidates) to agree to an unbounded term; setting it at two
years is a way to ensure that there is a regular cadence to asking the
incumbent if they can still dedicate the time.  Adrian has agreed that he
still can afford to do so, as I noted in my previous email.

The IAB is not conducting search; it's asking the community for feedback on
the incumbent.  That's  how the community can weigh in on extending the
term, and, as I'm sure you saw in your review, it's pretty much the
standard way of making sure the community is consulted for appointments
like this.

> It seems to me that selecting an arbitrary date for a review might be a
> useful approach in normal times, but now - not so much.  I think that date
> has been overtaken by events, and the IAB should - in consultation with
> Adrian of course - set a review date and term expiration date a bit further
> in the future, either changing that date now, or agreeing to defer setting
> a date until the RSE discussion is a bit more settled.
>
I believe it is in no one's interest to have the RSE and ISE positions both
> up for grabs at the same time.
>
As I pointed out, the IAB is not conducting a search; the ISE position "is
not up for grabs".

> If there's some underlying reason that can't be waived (e.g. contract),
> then let the community know what your firm constraints are.
>
The guiding principle here is to continue consulting the incumbent ISE on
his availability and the community on how it's going at the pace that was
previously set out.

Speaking as a member of the IAB, not as its chair, I believe the community
guidance has been in part to avoid surprises; changing the term now or
avoiding community consultation would both be surprises.  Given that we
have the time to run the usual process and a willing incumbent, I'd
personally rather do that.

As chair, I will ensure that your feedback on the process will be heard by
the IAB.  Should the consensus be to change the process, I will be happy to
go along with that consensus.  In either event, I urge you and other
readers to provide feedback; even if the process does change, Adrian has
indicated that he is interested in whatever feedback can be channeled back
to him, so it will serve a good purpose in any event.

regards,
Ted Hardie