ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [arch-d] Call for Comment: <draft-iab-rfc3677bis> (IETF ISOC Board of Trustee Appointment Procedures)

2016-02-29 21:47:31
Mike,

I did read it, but as I said, I still think Brian’s text is fine.  It’s 
somewhere in the middle of the two ends of the spectrum that you outlined.

Bob

On Feb 29, 2016, at 1:57 PM, Michael StJohns 
<mstjohns(_at_)comcast(_dot_)net> wrote:

Reading your email, I'm under the impression you didn't actually read mine.   
I actually suggested that the 2-3 paragraphs of "remember to update the BCP" 
could be replaced with one sentence of text that didn't ever need to be 
changed going forward.

Brian's text is proscriptive without any real teeth - which suggests to me 
that it is the wrong text - either too little direction or too much 
direction.  I came down on the side of too much, but provided text to fix it 
in either direction.

Mike



Sent from my iPad

On Feb 29, 2016, at 10:46, Bob Hinden 
<bob(_dot_)hinden(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com> wrote:

Mike,

After reading your email, I think Brian’s proposed text is fine.  I don’t 
think anything more is needed.

The IAB did the right thing when the ISOC bylaws changed the number of IETF 
appointed board members, and they are doing the right thing to update 
RFC3677.

Next.

Bob


On Feb 28, 2016, at 12:06 PM, Michael StJohns 
<mstjohns(_at_)comcast(_dot_)net> wrote:

On 2/28/2016 1:48 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
Well, OK.

NEW NEW:
If ISOC further modifies [ISOC-By-Laws] concerning the
number of IETF appointments to the ISOC Board or the
timing thereof, the IAB may make corresponding
modifications to the frequency and the timing of the
processes embodied in this document. Such changes will
be announced via an IAB statement. The IAB must then
propose a corresponding update to this document within
one year.

Regards
Brian


I'm always somewhat pained by toothless requirements.  E.g.  what's the 
downside if the IAB fails propose an update, or if they drag out the 
completion of the update for several years because other things are more 
important?

The above is either too much or too little.  So if its too much then:

Replace 3.4.1 and 3.4.2 with:  "The IAB shall appoint the IETF-sourced 
members to the ISOC board with the terms and schedule for such members as 
described by the ISOC charter, and as they are notified by the ISOC board 
of IETF-sourced vacancies."

[I see no reason for the BCP to go into the details of which years as a) 
its not under the IETF's control, and b) it's subject to change if the ISOC 
board needs to move things around]

If its too little then:

replace 3.4.2 with the Brian's text (replacing "proposed" with "completed") 
and adding:  "If the IAB fails to complete a change to the BCP within 1 
year, then their power to appoint the IETF-sourced members of the ISOC 
board shall lapse  and such power shall devolve upon the most recently 
seated IETF nominations committee. The confirmation of such appointments 
shall remain with the IESG.  The power to make such appointments shall 
revert to the IAB upon publication of the updated BCP."

[Basically, if the IAB doesn't have time to complete the BCP, then it 
probably doesn't have time to deal with the ISOC appointments]


To be clear, I'd go with the "too much" alternative above and just say that 
the appointments are made on the schedule described by the ISOC.

On the other hand, noting that the language in the rationale section (1.2) 
is no longer a completely accurate statement of reality (cf appointment of 
IAOC members), it may make sense to re-address who should be doing these 
appointments.  Perhaps the IAOC is a better body?  Or this can be folded 
into the Nomcom process?   Not making any recommendations here, just noting 
that if we're updating this document, we should make sure it's all valid as 
of the date of publication.

Later, Mike



On 29/02/2016 05:11, Bob Hinden wrote:
On Feb 27, 2016, at 12:39 PM, John C Klensin 
<john-ietf(_at_)jck(_dot_)com> wrote:



--On Saturday, February 27, 2016 12:35 -0800 Barry Leiba
<barryleiba(_at_)computer(_dot_)org> wrote:

NEW:
If ISOC further modifies [ISOC-By-Laws] concerning the
number of IETF appointments to the ISOC Board or the
timing thereof, the IAB may make corresponding
modifications to the frequency and the timing of the
processes embodied in this document, pending any
modification to this document. Such changes will be
announced via an IAB statement.
I think a change such as that would be good.
I agree but, if the intent is that the IAB modifications and
statement are a stopgap, to avoid discontinuities, etc., but
that the IAB is still expected to move expeditiously to get the
BCP updated, that could be said a lot more clearly.
I agree.  The IAB shouldn’t delay it’s board appointment until this 
document is updated, but it should do an update in a reasonable amount of 
time.

Thanks,
Bob


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>