--On Friday, September 21, 2018 11:19 -0700 Ted Hardie <ted.ietf@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Fri, Sep 21, 2018 at 11:13 AM, Bob Hinden > <bob.hinden@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> > And to be clear on just how abbreviated, the LLC board is >> > already >> meeting and the document which shifts the Trustee selection >> algorithm is in IETF Last Call. There is a race condition >> here that could result in this selection never actually >> serving. >> >> The trust documents are finishing IASA 2.0 w.g. last call. >> As far as I can tell none of the IASA 2.0 documents are in >> IETF last call. > Bob, > > You're right, my apologies. I saw the gen-art review pass, > and I mentally assumed I had missed the IETF Last Call. It > turns out it was triggered before the Last Call was issued. > As those on the list saw, the chairs today indicated that they > will request publication soon. > > Ted Bob and Ted, Independent of the above, I think the key question is still the one raised by Ted's note and the responses from Leslie and Glenn: even if this position were to be filled by 24 October (see https://datatracker.ietf.org/nomcom/2017/ and note that the schedule there allows zero time for community feedback), would there be enough functional work for the IAOC to do before it shuts down entirely to justify the expenditure of candidate, Nomcom, community, and IESG time to make filling the position worthwhile? If the IAOC is, by that time, just a placeholder until the IETF Trust gets sorted out, I can't imagine that a vacant position for a few weeks would be harmful enough to justify a lot of investment. Perhaps others can imagine that but, given (especially) Glenn's comments, I think they should explain. Otherwise, my conclusion is just about the same as Ted's (and Leslie's and Glenn's) even if the schedule is a bit longer: we shouldn't invest significant time in filling that position. john
