Hi Martin,
Thanks for your response, inline.
On Mon, Jul 1, 2019 at 8:41 PM Martin Thomson <mt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Hi Kathleen,
On Mon, Jul 1, 2019, at 23:50, Kathleen Moriarty wrote:
> I just reviewed the IAB description and am wondering if the statement
> that the IAB member should act at the "Board" level should be kept to a
> technical board level? If not, a greater understanding of business risk
> and management should be part of the "Member qualities" section.
Why do you feel that needs special attention? The current text mentions "operational management backgrounds" along with a range of other characteristics. Would you give this greater weight than experience in Internet governance or academia?
I ma pointing this out as the feel of the focus (at least to me) has been on architectural oversight and technical strength. I hope the NomCom looks for a diverse set of members that balance each other out in multiple ways (technical, managerial, industry focus, etc.). Understanding the desired focus for acting at the board level could be more important with the IESG, IAB, IETF LLC, and IETF Trust. The LLC and Trust have budgets and legal responsibilities. The IAB does have political aspects to the role with other SDOs and Internet governance considerations. The Internet governance considerations are typically rooted in technical viewpoints and that has worked well. The type of board may make a difference here for the NomCom.
> Additionally, I think it would be helpful to make it clear that the RFC
> Editor is our publisher as it's not entirely clear that the community
> fully understands the role by the current title. Since NomCom members
> may have more or less experience in the IETF, I think it is important
> to ensure that is clear.
The description says very little about the role the IAB has in oversight of the RSE. That might be a burning issue of the moment, but is this something that needs additional language in the description, as opposed to just being handled by the usual process of NomCom feedback?
Well, I think just changing "RFC Editor" to "RFC Editor (Publisher)" may make a difference in how this is understood.
I say that because - as you say - there is some disagreement and confusion about the nature of this relationship. I'm not sure that there is anything we could concretely say without being seen to prejudice the outcome of the ongoing discussion. Maybe that's just a failing of my imagination, so if you can propose specific text that we can all agree to, that would be appreciated.
How the RFC Editor (Publisher) relationship is maintained in an ongoing basis may very well change as a result of the current situation. Since the IETF LLC owns the contract, this will likely be revisited with an eye towards risk management, understanding contracts, and peer management.
If the IAB focus is to be maintained as architectural oversight and guidance, perhaps offloading this responsibility makes sense. The NomCom could look for some people with risk management experience too in the balancing of nominee candidates or could focus on the other areas to balance more core to the type of board.
Best regards,
Kathleen
Cheers,
Martin
Best regards,
Kathleen
