that is not actually consistent
the proposed bylaws change says that the seat is added to the next selection
cycle
not that someone gets picked outside of the cycle and only gets seated when the
people seated by the next selection cycle get seated
it would seem to be more straightforward to just say “added to the next
selection cycle” and
I think it would be easier on the IETF to not run multiple selection processes
(perhaps overlapping)
in a year
Scott
On Apr 20, 2016, at 3:30 PM, Russ Housley <housley(_at_)vigilsec(_dot_)com>
wrote:
Scott:
I think that the language can be aligned with very minimal changes.
If I have understood the potential change to the ISOC Bylaws, this
will work with the current bylaws and the poposed ones, if they are
approved.
OLD:
This document describes the process for the general, annual
appointment of ISOC Trustees to fill the seats of Trustees whose
terms are ending. However, if an IETF-appointed Trustee is unable to
serve his or her full term, the IAB may, at its discretion,
immediately select a replacement to serve the remainder of the term
using the interim process defined in Section 3.5.1. If the IAB does
not invoke the interim process, the next annual selection process
will fill the vacancy (if the vacant term does not end at that point)
as well as the regular appointment for that selection cycle.
NEW:
This document describes the process for the general, annual
appointment of ISOC Trustees to fill the seats of Trustees whose
terms are ending. However, if an IETF-appointed Trustee is unable to
serve his or her full term, the IAB may, at its discretion, select a
replacement to serve the remainder of the term using the interim
process defined in Section 3.5.1, with a start date consistent
with the [ISOC-By-Laws]. If the IAB does not invoke the interim
process, the next annual selection process will fill the vacancy
(if the vacant term does not end at that point) as well as the
regular appointment for that selection cycle.
Russ
On Apr 20, 2016, at 2:41 PM, Scott O. Bradner <sob(_at_)sobco(_dot_)com>
wrote:
My quick read of the vacancy process assumed an approach that made an
appointment when a vacancy occurs and the proposal is to have the IETF
follow the same process as the other groups that select trustees and add the
seat to the next selection cycle
I may have misread the 3677bis proposal
If so please correct me
Scott
Sent from my iPhone
On Apr 20, 2016, at 2:18 PM, Russ Housley <housley(_at_)vigilsec(_dot_)com>
wrote:
Scott:
I cannot see how the change that you are proposing to the ISOC Bylaws has
any impact on the content of rfc3677bis. What am I missing?
If I am not missing anything, then it seems to me that waiting to move
forward on this is counter to may of the other comments that we got about
acting promptly to keep our document in sync with the current bylaws.
Russ
On Feb 25, 2016, at 7:27 AM, Bradner, Scott <sob(_at_)harvard(_dot_)edu>
wrote:
re section 3.5 mid-term vacancies
please hold off on this particular section for a bit - I am in the middle
of proposing some changes
to the ISOC bylaws - mostly to clear up some confusions - and one of these
changes concerns IETF vacancy appointments
the current bylaws do not limit when the IETF can appoint someone to fill
a vacancy but do limit when such an
appointment can take office to the start of the ISOC mid year meeting,
when all new trustees take office - which might
be a bit frustrating to the appointee
I am proposing a bylaws update that will put the IETF appointment t fill a
vacancy to be the same
as it is for the chapters & org members - with until the next appointment
cycle (to do otherwise
provided unequal treatment for the IETF)
in any case some change is needed to clarify the existing situation
Scott
On Feb 24, 2016, at 12:59 PM, IAB Executive Administrative Manager
<execd(_at_)iab(_dot_)org> wrote:
This is an announcement of an IETF-wide Call for Comment on
draft-iab-rfc3677bis-00.
The document is being considered for publication as a Best Current
Practice RFC within the IAB stream, and is available for inspection
here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-iab-rfc3677bis/
The Call for Comment will last until 2016-03-23. Please send comments to
architecture-discuss(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org and iab(_at_)iab(_dot_)org.
Abstract
This memo, which obsoletes RFC3677, outlines the process by which the
IETF makes a selection of an Internet Society (ISOC) Board of
Trustees appointment.