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

Hi Ted - sorry for top posting, but doing line insertion on an iPad is painful.  

I’m happy to wait for the result of the e-vote, but I wanted to give you my logic tree:

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.  

If this review has potential consequences ( e.g depending on review comments, the IAB  might actually decide he must be replaced) then that sets the IAB and the community up for the situation I’m afraid of.  And given that the IAB’s decision process is not visible to the community, the IAB trying to explain why this had to happen will not be a pretty sight.  

Of course, all could be well and the IAB just does a routine reappointment.   But I can’t really predict the future on that - nor can you I believe. AIRC from the IAB charter, two members could prevent consensus to reappoint.  

I’d rather avoid any possibility of uncertainty here one way or the other.  

———————————

For the record, I think Adrian is doing a great job and the one the community wants him to do.   

I wait with breathless anticipation the IABs decision on my suggested delay.  

Mike

Sent from my iPad

> On Sep 13, 2019, at 08:07, Ted Hardie <ted.ietf@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> On Fri, Sep 13, 2019 at 5:26 AM John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com> wrote:
> 
>> Ted,
>> 
>> While I appreciate your reflections on what is going on here,
>> including sticking to expected dates and process and the
>> reassurance that the IAB is not expecting a change or to run a
>> call for candidates, I have to agree with Mike that the timing
>> is exquisitely unfortunate.
>> 
> I have a strong impression that this process will run to completion prior to IETF 106.  Given the current timelines for other community discussion, it seems to me that moving the process later is higher risk than running it now.  I understand that Mike's views differ here.
>  
>> As has been said many times before, one of the IETF's (and
>> IAB's) strengths traditionally has been our ability and
>> willingness to make adjustments and do the right thing rather
>> than taking the position that the procedures are the procedures
>> and we just need to follow them no matter what.  In this case,
>> it seems to me that it would have plausible for the IAB to have
>> had a quiet conversation with Adrian (some weeks ago -- the IAB
>> obviously knew this was coming) as to whether postponing this
>> review would cause any inconvenience to him and, if not, asking
>> the community if, under the circumstances, there were serious
>> objections to doing so.  That would have been orderly, it would
>> not have seriously violated community expectations (especially
>> if done a few months ago) and it would have been, at least in my
>> opinion, a much better way to handle things.   I wonder if it
>> was even considered.
>> 
> The timing was discussed; since the appointment is until February of next year, there was some leeway without changing any community expectations.  Asking Adrian earlier rather than later seemed important in order to handle the case that he was not willing to continue.  Since he was willing to continue, that was fortunately avoided, but there seemed no reason to delay asking for community input.   
> 
> As Mike raised an objection to the current process, I have sent an e-vote to the IAB asking if they wish to reconsider the process in light of the objection; as I noted to him, I personally believe that this running now adds to the stability of the system rather than subtracts from it.  If the IAB wants to reconsider I will, of course, go with that new theory.  
> 
> regards,
> 
> Ted Hardie
> 
>  
>> thanks,
>>    john
>> 
>> 
>> --On Thursday, September 12, 2019 21:06 -0700 Ted Hardie
>> <ted.ietf@gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>> > 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
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 