On Thu, Oct 21, 2021, at 00:13, Barry Leiba wrote:
The only way we have, at this point, to make community appointments isthrough the NomCom, and I think it would be a bad approach to add SAApositions to the NomCom's slate.
I definitely agree with this. While there are some advantages to having the NomCom appoint everything, the SAA role isn't one of the things that needs it - likewise we don't have the NomCom appoint all working group chairs, instead we have the ADs appoint them as part of their responsibilities.
I do understand Lloyd's issue as well - he had a particularly messy run-in with the SAA in a circumstance where the SAA was being used to shut down a very uncomfortable discussion about a publication which was seen to be claiming a consensus which had not been established.
If the SAA was the final arbiter of what's acceptable in the IETF, then I'd agree that we need a more rigorous way to appoint them - but, they aren't. The escalation point for a problem with the SAA is the IETF chair, and if you ALSO have a problem with the chair, then there's a dispute resolution or recall processes. So the SAA isn't the final arbiter, so I'm quite happy for the SAAs to continue to be appointed by the chair.
Cheers,
Bron.
--
Bron Gondwana, CEO, Fastmail Pty Ltd
brong@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
