Re: I-D Action: draft-hardie-iaoc-iab-update-00.txt

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



See below

On 2/6/2016 2:06 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
Mike,

The IAB has oversight responsibility for the RFC Editor. The IAOC oversees
the IAD, who manages contracts for the community, including the RFC editing
contracts. I therefore believe that having a voting IAB member among the voting
members of the IAOC is appropriate. Otherwise the IAB doesn't have a clear
"chain of command" (or, alternatively, "the buck stops here") linkage to
that aspect of the RFC Editor.

A similar argument shows why the IAB should be directly linked to the
IETF Trust, which holds the rights in RFCs and may come to hold the rights in
IANA data.

Neither argument shows that the person needs to be the IAB Chair, IMHO.

I regard this as quite disjoint from how the ordinary members of the IAOC
are appointed. Splitting that job between the IESG, the IAB and the Nomcom
was a fairly arbitrary choice, but I think the Nomcom has a big enough
job already.

     Brian



Hi Brian -

IMO, I think you've made a good argument for retaining at least one IAB member on the IAOC, an incomplete argument for why that member need not be the IAB chair and a very poor argument as to why the IAB should continue to appoint a second person.

WRT the incomplete argument I'd ask the current (and past members) of the IAOC to comment on the following questions (to paraphrase Leslie's note quite a bit):

Are there specific benefits to the IAOC to having the IAB chair continue as a member of the IAOC that would not be met if he/she were replaced by another member of the IAB? Are there specific issues the IAOC might encounter if the IAB chair were not a member of the IAOC and how could those issues be mitigated? [If you were still on the IAOC,] Would you object to the change and for what reasons?

So far I *think* I haven't seen anyone currently on the IAOC comment on the above.

For the poor argument related to why the IAB should continue to appoint a second person - seriously?? "The Nomcom has a big enough job already". I might find this a reasonable argument if (and pretty much only if) the Nomcom weren't already required to (advertise for and interview and ) appoint an IAOC member every term. AFAICT, having the Nomcom change that to two (or even three) per year and removing the need for the other two (or three - not quite sure about ISOC) bodies to advertise, interview, and select would reduce the workload on the IAB, IESG and maybe ISOC without actually increasing the workload of the Nomcom much if at all. [This is based on the observation that the same people will probably apply to the IAB, IESG and Nomcom solicitations and if all three bodies are doing their jobs in a complete manner similar to what the Nomcom should be doing, that seems like a lot of redundancy in the process.]


Later, Mike






[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]