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

[Ted Hardie <[e-mail]>]

Howdy Mike,

Replies in-line.

On Tue, Sep 17, 2019 at 9:18 AM Michael StJohns <[e-mail]>
wrote:

> 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]>
> 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.
>

No, no, it's a standard Dell Z230.  The distro is a little odd, I grant
you, since it's our own flavor of Debian testing, but I don't think it's
commonly considered an instrument of torture.

> 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
>

It's not actually a real argument--I don't think Christian should be exempt
from NomCom review.  It's an illustration of why your previous statement,
which had a single axis for evaluating different schemes for delaying the
ISE renewal, might run afoul of different goals, like maintaining a cadence
of community review.

The stream manager proposal was discussed by Heather at the first of the 3
interim discussions on how to convene the process, by the way, which is why
it was part of the illustration.

>
> 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.
>
Noted.

> 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?
>
I expect we will record the results of the e-vote at tomorrow's meeting.
While the tally is not yet official, so far no one has supported re-opening
the process.


> 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.
>
> It was part of the discussion with the candidates and the agreement with
the incumbent; it was also announced to the community at the time.  As I
said before, deciding to change it and make up a new process would be a
late surprise, and we're trying to avoid those.  In this case especially,
there seems to be no reason to avoid this proceeding according to Hoyle.

regards,

Ted Hardie



> All that said, the IAB will do what the IAB wants to do...
>
> Later, Mike
>
>
>
> regards,
>
> Ted Hardie
>
> _______________________________________________
> rfc-interest mailing [e-mail]://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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