The IETF and various members occasionally break out in back seat driver's syndrome. It's disappointing. We need to remember that we are organized more as a republic than a democracy. We select various folks through the Nomcom process to make decisions on various things. E.g.. the IESG for standards advancement, the IAOC for meeting venue select and the IAB for appointment of liaisons. The process for selecting and appointing liaisons is the purview of the IAB and not currently subject to external review - and I don't find any problem with that. Among other things, liaisons have to be acceptable to both sides of the liaison relationship. Trying to fill that slot like we might an IESG slot (e.g. advertising, running them through the nomcom and then having the IAB appoint them) really makes little sense. Also, since liaison's have no specific term (I think that's the case - I'm not going to go research it right now), if a better fit comes along (e.g. someone volunteers) there is really no bar to the IAB replacing the current liaison by the issuance of a single email. (And this is the point where I ask David if he's got a better candidate). Seriously - can we stop second guessing the IESG, IAB and IAOC on everything? If there is a wide held belief that we need to revise the scope of responsibilities for any of these bodies, let's address THAT problem (I haven't heard there is - but I may have missed something) rather than caviling about decisions that probably have little if any direct impact on the ability of the IETF to create standards. Mike At 02:50 PM 3/28/2013, John C Klensin wrote: >--On Thursday, March 28, 2013 18:28 +0100 Carsten Bormann ><cabo@xxxxxxx> wrote: > >> On Mar 27, 2013, at 22:26, David Kessens >> <david.kessens@xxxxxxx> wrote: >> >>> Recently, there has been a lot of discussion in the IETF >>> about diversity. >> >> Is it just me or is the liaison manager for the politically >> tempestuous ITU-T relationship really about the worst possible >> position to exercise this point on? >> >> Choose your battles; this one is not a productive one. > >Carsten, > >I think there may be two, possibly three, separate issues here. > >(1) Suppose the IAB had said, borrowing from your words, "this >position is so politically tempestuous that we've concluded it >would be unwise to appoint anyone unless he or she is now >serving in an SG liaison role or has been actively involved in >the liaison oversight activities in the last year". That would >lead to a small pool, but, speaking from the perspective of >someone who would meet that qualification, I'd think it would be >reasonable (whether I agree or not). If that were among the >IAB's criteria for the appointment, a discussion within and >about that small group would be sufficient and a public call for >candidates would be a waste of the time of both the community >and the IAB except, perhaps, for symbolic purposes. Perhaps >that is more or less what happened, in which case all we have is >an instance of less-than-ideal communication. > >(2) Given that the pool is small under any scenario, should >there have been a public call for candidate applications? I >tend to agree with David about that -- an open call for >candidates can only increase the IAB's and the community's >confidence that everyone plausible and willing has been >considered. On the other hand and referring to the above, if >the IAB defined the pool so that a public call would just be >window-dressing then I, for one, appreciate their not wasting >everyone's time. I also don't have an opinion as to whether >they should have posted the criteria they were going to use and >issued a public call for comment on them. Again, precisely >because this is a sensitive job, that is not an obviously good >idea, especially if the comments were likely to explode onto >public lists or, in the worst case, an effort by the other body >to influence the choice of candidates. > >(3) If they had issued a public call for candidates, should they >have been required to make the names public and ask for >community comment on those names? I'm sure that some would >argue that they should. You would presumably say "politically >tempestuous relationship" and "no". While I would agree with >you, I would generalize it and suggest that the IAB should >never, or almost never, issue such a list of names and public >call for comments about candidates for a liaison position. My >reason would be that one doesn't want to encourage >second-guessing by the other body, even if as mild as "what does >it mean that they sent us Alice instead of Bob", much less >efforts by the other body to influence the choice. So, again >comparing the apparent handling of the ITU-T and ICANN liaison >roles, I think both represent less-than-optimal judgment on the >IAB's part, one to expose too little and the other to expose too >much. But I don't know all of the facts or the IAB's reasoning >and might change my mind if I did. > >YMMD. > john