Hi Mike,
On Sat, Sep 14, 2019 at 10:24 AM Michael StJohns <mstjohns@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Goal: Avoid having to find a new ISE at the same time we're resolving
the RSE issues.
To illustrate this, let me highlight it using a different phrasing and different position. The ISE is a stream manager, with responsibility for the output of the Independent Stream. Christian Huitema is the stream manager for the IAB stream. If we phrased this as "Avoid having to change stream managers at the same time we're resolving the issues raised when the RSE declined to accept a new contract", then it seems logical that we should exempt Christian from NomCom review, even though his term is up and he would normally be renewed at this time. After all, one of the major theories here is that the stream managers could convene the process for updating the RFC model--changing them out midstream would clearly be disruptive. Of course, if that dragged on, we might also have to exempt Alissa, since she's the stream manager for the IETF stream.
You see the problem, of course; exempting them from NomCom renewal means that the goal of avoiding potential issues with the RFC Series results collides with a different goal--getting community review of leadership positions on a regular basis.
In this particular case, doing the review now for the renewal due in February means we will have the comments in hand before IETF 106 and can move through the rest of the process without colliding with whatever next steps are decided there. That's why I continue to believe that this review, conducted at its normal time, is less risky than delaying it.
regards,
Ted Hardie
