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

[Michael StJohns <[e-mail]>]

Hi Ted - inline

On 9/17/2019 11:09 AM, Ted Hardie wrote:
> Hi Mike,
>
> On Sat, Sep 14, 2019 at 10:24 AM Michael StJohns <[e-mail] 
> <mailto:[e-mail]>> 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.

This logic is so tortured I pictured you in a dungeon with a rack and 
other instruments of painful persuasion.

Until today, I didn't actually know who the IAB or IESG stream managers 
were, and I still don't care.  Basically, if one of them dropped dead, 
resigned, or otherwise became unavailable, the respective body would 
simply replace them and the community as a whole mostly wouldn't care.  
Trying to equate the IAB or IESG stream managers with the ISE (who is 
*also*  the independent stream manager as well as its editor) seems to 
be a stretch.

At this point, you're (IAB/RSOC) clamped on to the 6635 model of RSE 
refresh and have shown no signs of changing that (except that you don't 
actually want to hire an RSE, so I'm not quite sure how 6635 applies?).  
Had you - prior to this discussion - offered to make that change to 
involve the stream managers and others, you *might* have a point to your 
argument that this might be disruptive (but probably not).  Now - I 
don't think your argument holds water.


>
> 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.

False conclusion from a false premise.  Ignored.

>
> 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.

You were supposed to put this to an e-vote and report back.  I haven't 
heard anything about that?

In any event, the RSOC didn't seem to think that its review actions 
could trigger a resignation - but here we are.  Both Heather and Adrian 
are professionals, but both get to decide when its time to leave.  I'm 
trying to avoid any possibility that the IAB (or the community for that 
matter) could make a misstep that triggers a decision on Adrian's part 
to resign the position.

I will repeat again - there is NOTHING in any of the documents related 
to the ISE that requires reviews be exactly two years. This was a 
"tradition" derived from Nevil's contract expiration that seems to have 
carried over into Adrian's term.  Yes, I know you said "2 years" in your 
announcement email - but that's administrative not legislative.

All that said, the IAB will do what the IAB wants to do...

Later, Mike


>
> regards,
>
> Ted Hardie
>
> _______________________________________________
> rfc-interest mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest

_______________________________________________
rfc-interest mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest