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

[Michael StJohns <[e-mail]>]

On 9/13/2019 8:12 PM, Stephen Farrell wrote:
> Mike, (but also addressing John):
>
> On 14/09/2019 00:51, Mike StJohns wrote:
>> 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.
> Huh? Gathering, anonymising and providing feedback seems
> like a fairly obvious and entirely normal reason to me.
> Doing that every couple of years regardless of whatever
> else is going on also seems entirely unremarkable to me
> too.

Me too.   But that can either be an end to itself, or feed into a review 
process with consequences...


>
> Honestly folks - those of you suspicious of the IAB and
> all our doings don't need to be quite so concerned. It
> is just not the case that everything the IAB does is
> shrouded in one of scheming or ineptitude;-) I say that
> as an IAB member who does think the IAB has variously
> messed up recently.

This really isn't so much about trust, but about game theory.


Goal:  Avoid having to find a new ISE at the same time we're resolving 
the RSE issues.

Assumptions:  The current ISE is willing to continue for some period 
with or without a review, and there are no unforeseeable events that 
cause the ISE to be vacant (Adrian falling over dead, etc).

Strategy 1:  Defer the periodic review until after the RSE issues are 
resolved, or in progress to being resolved.

    Probability of Goal Success (POGS): 100%
    Cost: None

Strategy 2: Extend the current ISE's term for a fixed amount (e.g. 6, 
12, 18 or 24 months) without gathering review comments.

   POGS: 100%
   Cost: None

Strategy 3:  Extend the current ISE's term for a fixed amount; gather 
review comments but the extension is guaranteed, the comments do not 
affect the length of the term.

   POGS: ~100% (ISE could decline to be reappointed after feedback)
   Cost:  Cost to community to provide comments; cost to IAB to collate 
them and provide feedback to the ISE.

Strategy 4:  Execute the periodic review on time; reappoint or not 
reappoint the ISE dependent on that process

   POGS:  < 100%   (IAB fails to reach consensus on reappointment, ISE 
declines to be reappointed for whatever reason)
   Cost:  As with strategy 3, plus the possible cost of having to find a 
new RSE.


The first 2 strategies meet the goal without ever having to evaluate the 
probabilities related to human foibles.   The third strategy only 
depends on the ISE's determinations, but given the assumption, probably 
not a risk).  The first two strategies have the lowest cost.  Strategy 1 
vs Strategy 2 is more about how you want to fold in the delay against 
the current model.  Only the 4th strategy has a probability of failure 
(outside of the assumptions I made above).  It doesn't matter how small 
that probability is - I don't see any reason whatsoever for the 
community to take that risk at this time.  Maybe I'm being too risk 
averse, but if I have strategies that are risk free and cost free, why 
wouldn't I take them?


>
> I can say that there have been no IAB discussions at
> all that I could see leading to any chance whatsoever
> that we cause the same kind of bad outcome as happened
> with the RSE.

Sure - but it's irrelevant to the analysis and it's actually not 
something you can guarantee.    If the IAB wants to avoid even the 
slimmest possibility, maybe choose a different strategy.

Later, Mike


>
> Does that help assuage any suspicions or worries?
>
> Cheers,
> S.
>

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