Ted, Thanks for the quick and careful reply. After reading your note, I think everything was done correctly and with the right timing up to the point that Adrian indicated he was willing to continue. After that, it would have been a reasonable option to ask him if he was willing to extend for some months as necessary to let other things settle down before you launched the feedback period. Obviously, if he had told you he intended to step down in February, we;d have another time-constrained RFC Editor Function deadline on our hands, but, fortunately, he didn't. Whether that is the best option, I leave to the IAB to decide... and hope that you will consult Adrian for his opinion in the process. best, john --On Friday, September 13, 2019 08:07 -0700 Ted Hardie <ted.ietf@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Fri, Sep 13, 2019 at 5:26 AM John C Klensin > <john-ietf@xxxxxxx> wrote: > >> Ted, >> >> While I appreciate your reflections on what is going on here, >> including sticking to expected dates and process and the >> reassurance that the IAB is not expecting a change or to run a >> call for candidates, I have to agree with Mike that the timing >> is exquisitely unfortunate. >> >> I have a strong impression that this process will run to >> completion prior > to IETF 106. Given the current timelines for other community > discussion, it seems to me that moving the process later is > higher risk than running it now. I understand that Mike's > views differ here. > > >> As has been said many times before, one of the IETF's (and >> IAB's) strengths traditionally has been our ability and >> willingness to make adjustments and do the right thing rather >> than taking the position that the procedures are the >> procedures and we just need to follow them no matter what. >> In this case, it seems to me that it would have plausible for >> the IAB to have had a quiet conversation with Adrian (some >> weeks ago -- the IAB obviously knew this was coming) as to >> whether postponing this review would cause any inconvenience >> to him and, if not, asking the community if, under the >> circumstances, there were serious objections to doing so. >> That would have been orderly, it would not have seriously >> violated community expectations (especially if done a few >> months ago) and it would have been, at least in my opinion, a >> much better way to handle things. I wonder if it was even >> considered. >> >> The timing was discussed; since the appointment is until >> February of next > year, there was some leeway without changing any community > expectations. Asking Adrian earlier rather than later seemed > important in order to handle the case that he was not willing > to continue. Since he was willing to continue, that was > fortunately avoided, but there seemed no reason to delay > asking for community input. > > As Mike raised an objection to the current process, I have > sent an e-vote to the IAB asking if they wish to reconsider > the process in light of the objection; as I noted to him, I > personally believe that this running now adds to the stability > of the system rather than subtracts from it. If the IAB wants > to reconsider I will, of course, go with that new theory. > > regards, > > Ted Hardie > > > >> thanks, >> john >> >> >> --On Thursday, September 12, 2019 21:06 -0700 Ted Hardie >> <ted.ietf@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> > Hi Mike >> > (snipped some earlier discussion to make this more readable) >> > >> > On Thu, Sep 12, 2019 at 2:09 PM Michael StJohns >> > <msj@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> > >> >> 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 >> >> >> >> >>
