Re: draft-klensin-iaoc-member-01 (was: Re: I-D Action: draft-hardie-iaoc-iab-update-00.txt)

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

 



On 2/18/2016 9:41 AM, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
On Thu, Feb 18, 2016 at 12:29:09AM -0500, Michael StJohns wrote:
There's what's written down and then there's what actually happens.
Ok.

2 years as chair so I'm not all that worried about your scenario.  And
there's a lot of pressure to have some stability in the IAB chair's
position, which translates into similar stability in the IAOC IAB position.
Ok.

If you want to change who serves on the IAOC from the IAB, then we need to
have a rule with respect to that appointment that gives us a similar result
This doesn't follow.  Your argument is of the form, "We currently have
a formal rule that the appointment is nominally for one year, with a
possibility of it being shorter; but social pressure means that in
practice it is more stable.  Therefore, in the new system we need a
formal rule that enforces that greater stability."  The premises don't
really support your argument.  It'd be just as reasonable to conclude,
"Therefore, there should be a social expectation that people be
prepared to do this for two years or more."
Close - it's "Therefore, there should be an expectation that people be prepared to do this for two years or more" (note the lack of "social" here). With the IAB chair as the ex-officio member, we have an expectation based on experience and current social conventions that he/she will be in the IAB chari job for 2 or more years (and therefore in the IAOC member job for 2 years). I don't see a similar long held convention (social or otherwise) that would necessarily apply to the non-chair IAB member joining the IAOC, so putting in as an explicit expectation seems to make sense.


  My experience of the IETF
suggests that we are better off with more social conventions and fewer
formal rules, because the formal rules all require exception handling,
recovery rules, and so on; whereas when social conventions turn out
not to work perfectly you can treat the case as the one-off that it
usually is.

Mostly I agree with the above about letting social conventions rule. But you want to go from a current model where the expectation (and experience) is that we're going to have someone from the IAB on the IAOC for at least two years (with the concomitant benefit that said IAB member gains experience working with the IAOC), to a model where there is no expectation or even stated desire for the appointed IAB member to stick with the IAOC <hyperbole>past a change of underwear</hyperbole>.

draft-hardie-iaoc-iab-update talks about how the IAB might modify its charter, but doesn't provide concrete language for the IAOC charter on the change (e.g. the program language you have in the draft shouldn't become a dependency in the IAOC charter). Given the current draft (and your comments), I'd read the change as:

"Replace 'the IAB chair shall serve as an ex-officio voting member of the IAOC' to 'the IAB shall select one of its members to serve as an ex-officio voting member of the IAOC. The IAB shall be the sole authority for deciding how long and in what manner that IAB ex-officio member will serve. '"

I can see various scenarios like: "I'm tired of doing this after 6 months - we've got a new class of IAB members coming in, stick one of them with it" or "George, we don't like how you voted on the last site selection so we're replacing you effectively immediately" or "My boss wants me to lobby for an IETF in XXX, so put me on the IAOC - when I've accomplished that, I'll give the job to someone else" or "Someone else needs the job for resume building" or "I want to change jobs - my new org will support my time on the IAB, but thinks the IAOC is a waste of time - since I haven't given any commitment to stay on the IAOC, let me just dump that responsibility". The outside (e.g. non IAB) would simply see "X was replaced with Y" with no real understanding of why the change took place.

Everyone else on the IAOC has term requirements/expectations of a sort - and I mean everyone else. Why should the IAB be treated any differently? And I'm specifically talking about language that modifies the IAOC charter and not internal IAB changes (that only require IAB approval for said changes). I want there to be an expectation expressed by the IAOC towards the IAB of who and how the IAB will provide its member, with the understanding that extreme cases (member gets sick, member gets fired from his job, member ends up in too many conflicts of interest etc) requiring replacement may occur, but that generally service on the IAOC has a term and commitment obligation.

[Preemptive note on the programs - given that there's not a lot of transparency on how the IAB selects the various programs, members, leads etc, there's not a lot of "social expectation" on how long a given program lead normally serves, the criteria for replacement, etc. That may change over time, but for now, I believe this is a reasonable outsider's view. ]

In any event, I think I'm done with this discussion. I'm not saying anything above that I haven't before, nor have you I would say. I'll continue to monitor the chatter, but I'll reserve any comments for the next round of documents. I think draft-hardie-iaoc-iab-update is a dead end without specific charter change language.

Later, Mike



You make that sound like its a bad thing?
Yes.  See above.
Stability is a bad thing?  Hmm....



Best regards,

A





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