Re: [Rfced-future] Filling the RSCE position (was: Re: Comments on -07)

S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@elandsys.com> Wed, 12 January 2022 22:57 UTC

Return-Path: <sm@elandsys.com>
X-Original-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EAC223A0801 for <rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 12 Jan 2022 14:57:49 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.697
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.697 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_INVALID=0.1, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=fail (1024-bit key) reason="fail (message has been altered)" header.d=elandsys.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id gPX9Sl6XZKsN for <rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 12 Jan 2022 14:57:45 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mx.ipv6.elandsys.com (mx.ipv6.elandsys.com [IPv6:2001:470:f329:1::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6A6783A07FC for <rfced-future@iab.org>; Wed, 12 Jan 2022 14:57:45 -0800 (PST)
Received: from DESKTOP-K6V9C2L.elandsys.com ([102.116.97.90]) (authenticated bits=0) by mx.elandsys.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id 20CMvQS5000593 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Wed, 12 Jan 2022 14:57:40 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=elandsys.com; s=mail; t=1642028262; x=1642114662; i=@elandsys.com; bh=w5Y3l0kcTpjjzhuSo6GawKCD66XS14JSxbs2H5XIJoE=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:In-Reply-To:References; b=XmsACyycoCYVaoNw6Dl0MPipghkTsFZtMPArogFE1uDXpdjBHTnWAxONKWSxgj+h8 vbNSouOjC0xurnTkR6SOH611BnMkTaHsBKxpmnOSD0oi5AhwX5BQiyVId0GDvVXMhx tWduFBTWnMD4C75sxI/qi5fD29NqydEXcdDWAUTE=
Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20220112140123.16527920@elandnews.com>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6
Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2022 14:54:40 -0800
To: John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>, rfced-future@iab.org
From: S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@elandsys.com>
In-Reply-To: <065B204CFF18FAEF88F13AAE@PSB>
References: <F0016CA1725A561034951054@PSB> <7D28CA5F-594B-4212-9155-86669654A504@ietf.org> <A1A5EDBA-7598-4E74-ACEE-B7A39A8010F5@kuehlewind.net> <de858e02-a6ff-613b-3d2c-db85d5ea42b1@lear.ch> <CAFB3EA8-11D9-4D55-924A-B66294309869@kuehlewind.net> <2939BCCA4CA75D29739F59D4@PSB> <6.2.5.6.2.20220110231205.07ca1ba8@elandnews.com> <065B204CFF18FAEF88F13AAE@PSB>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rfced-future/73Rxek0ieL5Xkr7sDe258xC4IzA>
Subject: Re: [Rfced-future] Filling the RSCE position (was: Re: Comments on -07)
X-BeenThere: rfced-future@iab.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: RFC Editor Future Development Program <rfced-future.iab.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.iab.org/mailman/options/rfced-future>, <mailto:rfced-future-request@iab.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/rfced-future/>
List-Post: <mailto:rfced-future@iab.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rfced-future-request@iab.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.iab.org/mailman/listinfo/rfced-future>, <mailto:rfced-future-request@iab.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2022 22:57:50 -0000

Hi John,
At 04:38 PM 11-01-2022, John C Klensin wrote:
>If you want to look at it in those terms (I, personally, don't
>think it is particularly helpful), this group can specify any
>selection process it concludes would be desirable and effective,
>including having the RSAB or RSWG make open calls to the
>community for search committee members, select that committee,
>and have them go looking for an appropriate person to be RSCE.
>If we had them do that, that committee would then presumably ask
>the LLC to negotiate a contract with that person.  Presumably
>the LLC could say "no, we won't do that" but I wouldn't expect
>that and, if they did so without good reason, I assume there
>would be an IETF community meltdown, the likes of which we have
>not seen since the one popularly associated with the IAB meeting
>in Kobe.
>
>Again, I don't think that would be desirable, but the decisions
>as to the process by which the RSCE is chosen really belong to
>this group.  If the group believes that it is good to have the
>LLC responsible for the selection process (not just the
>contracting one), that is fine but, if the group also believes
>it wants to give the LLC guidance in how that is done, we should
>be able to assume that the LLC will follow that guidance.   If
>we feel that we cannot make that assumption, then turning over
>authority to make the selection to the LLC would be, to use the
>precise technical term, really stupid.
>
>That does suggest something we should (SHOULD ?) do before the
>Last Call which Eliot just announced to be pending: just as the
>IETF Last Call and IESG process involves formally asking IANA
>(also an "external organization" if the LLC is one), we should
>formally ask the LLC if they see any difficulties in accepting
>and implementing any of the provisions of the document and. if
>so, what they are.  If they do, those provisions of the document
>probably need adjustment.

The point I was trying to make was to understand the different 
boundaries and fit what the group would like to see within them.  The 
LLC is, if I am not mistaken, responsible for appointing people to 
the selection committee.  That committee makes a recommendation and 
the LLC takes the decision.

The last (quoted) paragraph might be {1] a practical way to tackle 
the matter.  Someone asks the LLC nicely and the LLC responds as per 
usual protocol.

Regards,
S. Moonesamy

1. I may be incorrect as I don't know the intricacies of the LLC.