Wes, I trust Mike's reading of the advice/instructions from the community to the IAB and what the IAB agreed to do (and then didn't) more than mine, but I think your note raises a few extra issues that may be worth identifying. --On Monday, March 30, 2020 13:47 -0700 Wes Hardaker <wjhns1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Michael StJohns <mstjohns@xxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > >> Given that you were part of the outgoing IAB as well as the >> incoming one, can you give us some insight as to why that >> didn't happen already? > > I'm afraid that conversation was in executive session, and it > would not be prudent of my to share any discussions related to > the final decision. Unfortunately, part of what got us into the present situation --one in which we are, perhaps, trying to have a discussion of the future of the RFC Series and the RFC Editor Function and doing so without the guidance and input from an experienced RSE-- involved the IAB using the executive session mechanism to exclude Heather from discussions of the Series that might reasonably have been expected to affect her. From the perspective of a former IAB member and chair, I think the IAB has an obligation to be as open and transparent as possible about its discussions, decisions, and the reasons for them and that implies that executive sessions should be used rarely and kept as narrow in focus as possible. YMMD, but I hope not. In that context, the decisions about who to select or not select and why should clearly be confidential and remain that way. The decision to appoint only a single chair and, given that there was not going to be a meeting or session at IETF 107 as originally announced, the decision to not simply turn over the whole decision-making process to the new IAB (who, as someone suggested, might reopen the call for candidates and do some arm-twisting, do not, it seems to me, deserve that protection. Remembering that the list of people from whom the IAB was going to select is public [1] and that I was on it (and noting that I'm definitely not speaking for Nevil or Chibuzor) let me open the kimono a bit further and reveal something that you probably cannot comfortably reveal. I didn't want the co-chair job and I think made the quite clear in my submission to the IAB. After some arm-twisting from a few community members and the second call for candidates, I put my name in to expand the pool and indicated that I was willing to serve if the IAB though that was the right answer (and even attached a few conditions to that). I have no idea why neither Nevil or Chibuzor were selected (if I had known Nevil's name was in the group, before I put my name in, I would have kept my name out and endorsed him). I don't know why you didn't pick at least one of them but, as others have pointed out, if you concluded that none of the three of us were appropriate, you had the option (especially with the IETF 107 deadline removed) of reopening the call for candidates and pushing things over the wall to the new IAB. > Personally, I'm actually happy that we only appointed one > chair, but probably not for the reason you think: this way, > with the large turn over of IAB members, it turns out that the > incoming IAB members will have a voice in potentially > selecting a second chair. But that "voice" could have been better accomplished by turning the whole problem over to them. The official announcement was not made until the middle of last week when such a handoff would have been very convenient. I assume the decision had been made when I got a "thanks anyway" note indicating I had not been selected about ten days earlier, but, by then, it was clear who was going to make up the new Nomcom, I gather some decisions had been made by the combined group, and it was very clear there wasn't going to be a meeting of the Program last week. The decision may have been perfectly reasonable, but I think, given that it violated both the community's advice and the IAB's commitment when the call for candidates was announced, it would be reasonable to tell the community why it was made without hiding behind "executive session". That is, IMO, especially important in this situation because, if the "future development" effort (when did it change from "evolution"?) starts off with the same level of distrust that characterized some of last year's discussions, clear and useful results would seem rather unlikely no matter how much effort Eliot and others put in. regards, john [1] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-announce/bpWX2XOhymGc3CS8CByRT1s34J8/
