On 9/13/2019 8:12 PM, Stephen Farrell wrote:
Mike, (but also addressing John):
On 14/09/2019 00:51, Mike StJohns wrote:
If Adrian will be reappointed regardless of the result of the review,
then there’s no obvious reason for gathering review material
between now and the expiration of the new appointment period.
Huh? Gathering, anonymising and providing feedback seems
like a fairly obvious and entirely normal reason to me.
Doing that every couple of years regardless of whatever
else is going on also seems entirely unremarkable to me
too.
Me too. But that can either be an end to itself, or feed into a review
process with consequences...
Honestly folks - those of you suspicious of the IAB and
all our doings don't need to be quite so concerned. It
is just not the case that everything the IAB does is
shrouded in one of scheming or ineptitude;-) I say that
as an IAB member who does think the IAB has variously
messed up recently.
This really isn't so much about trust, but about game theory.
Goal: Avoid having to find a new ISE at the same time we're resolving
the RSE issues.
Assumptions: The current ISE is willing to continue for some period
with or without a review, and there are no unforeseeable events that
cause the ISE to be vacant (Adrian falling over dead, etc).
Strategy 1: Defer the periodic review until after the RSE issues are
resolved, or in progress to being resolved.
Probability of Goal Success (POGS): 100%
Cost: None
Strategy 2: Extend the current ISE's term for a fixed amount (e.g. 6,
12, 18 or 24 months) without gathering review comments.
POGS: 100%
Cost: None
Strategy 3: Extend the current ISE's term for a fixed amount; gather
review comments but the extension is guaranteed, the comments do not
affect the length of the term.
POGS: ~100% (ISE could decline to be reappointed after feedback)
Cost: Cost to community to provide comments; cost to IAB to collate
them and provide feedback to the ISE.
Strategy 4: Execute the periodic review on time; reappoint or not
reappoint the ISE dependent on that process
POGS: < 100% (IAB fails to reach consensus on reappointment, ISE
declines to be reappointed for whatever reason)
Cost: As with strategy 3, plus the possible cost of having to find a
new RSE.
The first 2 strategies meet the goal without ever having to evaluate the
probabilities related to human foibles. The third strategy only
depends on the ISE's determinations, but given the assumption, probably
not a risk). The first two strategies have the lowest cost. Strategy 1
vs Strategy 2 is more about how you want to fold in the delay against
the current model. Only the 4th strategy has a probability of failure
(outside of the assumptions I made above). It doesn't matter how small
that probability is - I don't see any reason whatsoever for the
community to take that risk at this time. Maybe I'm being too risk
averse, but if I have strategies that are risk free and cost free, why
wouldn't I take them?
I can say that there have been no IAB discussions at
all that I could see leading to any chance whatsoever
that we cause the same kind of bad outcome as happened
with the RSE.
Sure - but it's irrelevant to the analysis and it's actually not
something you can guarantee. If the IAB wants to avoid even the
slimmest possibility, maybe choose a different strategy.
Later, Mike
Does that help assuage any suspicions or worries?
Cheers,
S.
