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

On Fri, Sep 13, 2019 at 8:08 AM 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.
>

For the record [0], I agree with this view.

-Ekr

[0] To the extent to which one believes -- mistakenly, IMO -- that traffic
on the ietf@ list ought to be taken as a proxy for the views of the
community.

>
> 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
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>