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

[Ted Hardie <[e-mail]>]

Hi Mike,

On Sat, Sep 14, 2019 at 10:24 AM Michael StJohns <[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.

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.

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.

regards,

Ted Hardie

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