Let me add, essentially from my earlier note but Mike's format
and style of analysis:
Strategy 3A: Extend the current ISE's term for a fixed amount
(preferably 24 months because going through these exercises very
often incurs it own cost and potential collateral damage) now;
gather feedback ("review comments" becomes an incorrect
description) after the RSE issues are resolved, or in progress
to being resolved.
POGS: 100% (ISE is simply reappointed now and the
feedback is forward-facing and presumably helpful to the
ISE as advertised but not about evaluation or renewal)
Cost: Cost to community to provide comments; cost to
IAB to collate them and provide feedback to the ISE.
I'm ok with either this or Mike's 2 or 3, but this would seem to
combine the best features of both if the IAB and/or the ISE
believe that a formal effort to collect feedback would be
helpful.
best,
john
--On Saturday, September 14, 2019 13:23 -0400 Michael StJohns
<mstjohns@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 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.
>>
>
