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

Mirja Kuehlewind <ietf@kuehlewind.net> Mon, 03 January 2022 17:24 UTC

Return-Path: <ietf@kuehlewind.net>
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 3EA293A095D; Mon, 3 Jan 2022 09:24:36 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.896
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.896 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 neLZ6GJc7Fda; Mon, 3 Jan 2022 09:24:32 -0800 (PST)
Received: from wp513.webpack.hosteurope.de (wp513.webpack.hosteurope.de [IPv6:2a01:488:42:1000:50ed:8223::]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AA7BE3A0962; Mon, 3 Jan 2022 09:24:31 -0800 (PST)
Received: from p200300dee733e700114c3388f1dd340c.dip0.t-ipconnect.de ([2003:de:e733:e700:114c:3388:f1dd:340c]); authenticated by wp513.webpack.hosteurope.de running ExIM with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) id 1n4R4J-0003Pz-UW; Mon, 03 Jan 2022 18:24:24 +0100
From: Mirja Kuehlewind <ietf@kuehlewind.net>
Message-Id: <4759EF04-586C-4288-A460-6F38A228A6F8@kuehlewind.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_189387D3-53F2-47CB-ABE6-4BEF78BC9FD8"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.4 \(3608.120.23.2.4\))
Date: Mon, 03 Jan 2022 18:24:22 +0100
In-Reply-To: <2939BCCA4CA75D29739F59D4@PSB>
Cc: Eliot Lear <lear@lear.ch>, rfced-future@iab.org, Jay Daley <exec-director@ietf.org>, Michael StJohns <msj@nthpermutation.com>
To: John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>
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>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3608.120.23.2.4)
X-bounce-key: webpack.hosteurope.de;ietf@kuehlewind.net;1641230671;d9b71b97;
X-HE-SMSGID: 1n4R4J-0003Pz-UW
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rfced-future/sGjuBaB3XutOS7kIc6N3ieXXFv8>
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: Mon, 03 Jan 2022 17:24:36 -0000


> On 3. Jan 2022, at 17:33, John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com> wrote:
> 
> At least as I understand "decision", they can (and have)
> delegated (at least many of) those. That is actually reasonable
> and appropriate: If the ED needed to get Board review prior to
> making every decision and acting on it, the result would be
> complete paralysis.

Yes, sorry I was not putting this clearly. When I said they can not delegate a “decision”, I was putting the word decision in quotes, because I don’t think the can delegate the responsibility for the decision. Yes, they have to delegate decisions, especially those related to more daily business, but that doesn’t mean the board can get them self out of any consequences of those decisions. 

>  Given that those delegations of authority
> exist (and the Board does not proactively intervene), if we say
> "the LLC", it is up to Jay's discretion when and how much to
> consult the Board with the range of possibilities stretching
> from "hand the problem back over to them and step back" to
> "inform them in a period report what has been done”.


That’s not how I would interpret that. It’s the board that first has to delegate any authority to the ED and respectively they can at any time reiterate that delegation and get involved if needed/wanted. So I don’t think it’s the ED’s discretion when and how to involve the board.

Mirja

P.S.: We don’t want anything like RSOC back, especially not for the oversight part of the responsibility, however, this is the text in RFC6635 on RSOC regarding the relation to the IAB and especially hiring a a reference:

   The RSOC will act with authority delegated from the IAB: in general,
   it will be the RSOC that will approve consensus policy and vision
   documents as developed by the RSE in collaboration with the
   community.  While it is expected that the IAB will exercise due
   diligence in its supervision of the RSOC, the RSOC should be allowed
   the latitude to do its job without undue interference from the IAB.
   Therefore, it is expected that the IAB will accord RSOC reports and
   recommendations the benefit of the doubt.

   For all decisions that affect the RSE individually (e.g., hiring and
   firing), the RSOC prepares recommendations for the IAB, but the final
   decision is the responsibility of the IAB.