John C Klensin <john-ietf@xxxxxxx> writes: Hi John, <more entirely without hats thinking> > >> 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. In general, I'm always happy to voice my personal opinions on matters. I can't, unfortunately, talk about things that I'm not supposed to (e.g. things received in confidence, which includes non-public email, conversations and, of course, executive sessions), or about things that I have no personal knowledge about. What happened before my time on the board started, or what happens in RSOC, both of which fall into the above category I can't help with unfortunately. [I'll note that all of the IAB's executive session discussion topics are on the published agendas, and in at least all the sessions I've participated in we've only discussed those topics and it's not used as a free-for-all discussion of anything, which is critical (IMHO).] What I do want to point out, is that the RFCed-Futures mailing list and related program is the perfect place to design a better system to find the right balance in the future. I'm personally looking forward to the outcomes of that effort. > 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. Over in the ICANN land, I've pushed heavily for open and transparent meetings for the last few years. I'm firmly in your camp of "everything that can and should be open should be". Unfortunately, when it comes to collecting and discussing private feedback for appointments, which is something the IAB spends a lot of meeting time doing (I've learned in the last year), that can't really be done as transparently and is one of the reasons the nomcom appointment process to the various bodies exists. > I didn't want the co-chair job and I think made the quite clear in my > submission to the IAB. And I thank you and everyone that volunteered. It's an incredibly important position (IMHO). [As before, I can't respond to much of the rest of the text about the decision making process] -- Wes Hardaker USC/ISI
