I went and reviewed the various emails since Nevil's original
appointment, and what I realized was that his "term" was directly
related to his contract to perform the ISE work. He had some sort
of MOU starting 10 Feb 2010. The 2/6/12 announcement of his
reappointment has him with a 3 year contract term beginning around
15 Feb 2012. He got 2 extensions of 2 years and 1 year (the 2
year extension was granted nearly 4 months in advance), all with
end/start date of 14/15 Feb.
Adrian got the appointment on 18 Oct 2017 for a 15 Feb 2018
start, but AFAIK, he's not on contract for a specific term. (Feel
free to correct me on that - I can't actually find anything that
points one way or the other). While you're correct that the
appointment message said "2 year term", there's no actual
underlying document (e.g. contract or RFC) that requires such a
term.
As you know, the ISE is an unpaid position, so the IAB did not ask Adrian (or the other candidates) to agree to an unbounded term; setting it at two years is a way to ensure that there is a regular cadence to asking the incumbent if they can still dedicate the time.. Adrian has agreed that he still can afford to do so, as I noted in my previous email.
The IAB is not conducting search; it's asking the community for feedback on the incumbent. That's how the community can weigh in on extending the term, and, as I'm sure you saw in your review, it's pretty much the standard way of making sure the community is consulted for appointments like this.
It seems to me that selecting an arbitrary date for a review
might be a useful approach in normal times, but now - not so
much. I think that date has been overtaken by events, and the IAB
should - in consultation with Adrian of course - set a review date
and term expiration date a bit further in the future, either
changing that date now, or agreeing to defer setting a date until
the RSE discussion is a bit more settled.
I believe it is in no one's interest to have the RSE and ISE
positions both up for grabs at the same time.
As I pointed out, the IAB is not conducting a search; the ISE position "is not up for grabs".
If there's some
underlying reason that can't be waived (e.g. contract), then let
the community know what your firm constraints are.
The guiding principle here is to continue consulting the incumbent ISE on his availability and the community on how it's going at the pace that was previously set out.
Speaking as a member of the IAB, not as its chair, I believe the community guidance has been in part to avoid surprises; changing the term now or avoiding community consultation would both be surprises. Given that we have the time to run the usual process and a willing incumbent, I'd personally rather do that.
As chair, I will ensure that your feedback on the process will be heard by the IAB. Should the consensus be to change the process, I will be happy to go along with that consensus. In either event, I urge you and other readers to provide feedback; even if the process does change, Adrian has indicated that he is interested in whatever feedback can be channeled back to him, so it will serve a good purpose in any event.
regards,
Ted Hardie
