Subject: Re: [Rfced-future] Issues 82 and 84: Vacancy and Quorum

From: Eliot Lear <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 1 Oct 2021 09:36:55 +0200

<Chair hat firmly OFF>

On 01.10.21 08:11, Martin J. Dürst wrote:
> On 2021-10-01 14:28, Eliot Lear wrote:
>>
>> I want to call out the discussion that we had in the interim meeting, 
>> key result of which is that the group felt strongly that the RSAB may 
>> not proceed to consider document approvals if there is a vacancy.  I 
>> believe this also covers our discussion about quorum, but if others 
>> disagree, either with the result of the group's consideration about 
>> vacancy or my interpretation about quorum, please raise that concern 
>> now.  This issue will close on the 12th of October.
>
> I agree with the sentiment, but I think it has already been mentioned 
> that creating a vacancy might allow a single stream to block progress 
> effectively infinitely.

This is indeed my concern.  This amounts to a pocket veto by one stream 
and subverts our already agreed approval flow.  I personally have a 
serious issue with providing so much power to any one stream.  I 
proposed as an alternative in the meeting that approvals should be 
paused for no more than 8 weeks in the case of a vacancy.  I would be 
just as happy if that were 12 weeks, but it cannot be an infinite period 
of time.  That just creates all the wrong incentives.

Eliot

---

From: Lars Eggert <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 1 Oct 2021 10:44:18 +0300

Hi,

On 2021-10-1, at 10:36, Eliot Lear <[email-masked]> wrote:
>>> I want to call out the discussion that we had in the interim meeting, key result of which is that the group felt strongly that the RSAB may not proceed to consider document approvals if there is a vacancy.  I believe this also covers our discussion about quorum, but if others disagree, either with the result of the group's consideration about vacancy or my interpretation about quorum, please raise that concern now.  This issue will close on the 12th of October.
>> 
>> I agree with the sentiment, but I think it has already been mentioned that creating a vacancy might allow a single stream to block progress effectively infinitely.
> 
> This is indeed my concern.  This amounts to a pocket veto by one stream and subverts our already agreed approval flow.  I personally have a serious issue with providing so much power to any one stream.  I proposed as an alternative in the meeting that approvals should be paused for no more than 8 weeks in the case of a vacancy.  I would be just as happy if that were 12 weeks, but it cannot be an infinite period of time.  That just creates all the wrong incentives.

instead of allowing an RSAB with vacancies to resume operation after some fixed time, I'd rather encode that there is an expectation that vacancies should be filled within some period of time. Because if they aren't, that is then an appealable event.

The reason I am hesitant to allow an RSAB with vacancies to take actions is that I was in a position as the IRTF stream owner where the RSOC (which I was never on) took decisions that forgot about the IRTF stream. I would like this to be impossible to reoccur in the new structure.

Thanks,
Lars

---

From: Eliot Lear <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 1 Oct 2021 10:20:13 +0200

<again, no hats on; just individual Eliot>

> instead of allowing an RSAB with vacancies to resume operation after some fixed time, I'd rather encode that there is an expectation that vacancies should be filled within some period of time. Beca…

There are serious  problems with this.  First, it is already difficult 
to make non-events appealable.  At what point does that happen?  At the 
moment that it can be said to be appealable we have a fixed time.  What 
happens the next time?  Does the appeals body hold to a precedent, 
thereby themselves and not this group establishing a timeline, or do 
they run the risk of being accused of inequitable treatment of 
appellants?  Finally, if the IAB themselves are the people gumming up 
the works, an appeal to them seems a foregone conclusion.

> The reason I am hesitant to allow an RSAB with vacancies to take actions is that I was in a position as the IRTF stream owner where the RSOC (which I was never on) took decisions that forgot about…

"Never" is a very long time and has consequences of its own, as 
discussed.  However, we have put forth a structure that cannot "forget" 
a stream so long as there are no vacancies, and we have left it up to 
the streams to establish policies to manage those vacancies.  They can 
move as quickly as they wish to fill those vacancies.  Knowing that the 
IETF and IAB like to be transparent, there are multiple approaches that 
can be taken in their processes to address even short term vacancies:

  * Establish a policy that permits each body to appoint without
    consultation an interim RSAB member until normal consultative
    processes have taken place.
  * Establish a policy that whoever is acting as chair of those bodies
    sits as the RSAB member.
  * Establish a standby selection member policy in advance.
  * Establish a firm selection timeline.
  * Any other idea the streams may have.

And one can combine it with a reasonable period of delay with the RSAB.  
Just not infinite.

Eliot (again, with no hats)

---

From: Martin J. Dürst <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 1 Oct 2021 17:37:37 +0900

Hello Lars, others,

> The reason I am hesitant to allow an RSAB with vacancies to take actions is that I was in a position as the IRTF stream owner where the RSOC (which I was never on) took decisions that forgot about…

I think this is a valid point. But what about the proposal I made in an 
earlier mail: temporary appointments.

In some way, the situation is different than with the RSOC. The IRTF 
didn't have a chance to tell the RSAB that there was a problem. If a 
stream doesn't manage to make at least a temporary appointment within a 
certain time frame, then isn't it more the stream than any other piece 
that is to blame if their concerns get ignored?

As for the expectation that vacancies are filled within some period of 
time, that makes sense. But it doesn't make sense if there is no 
consequence when it's not followed. And being an appealable event isn't 
a serious consequence unless the appeal leads to a fix. In the limit, 
that can only be guaranteed if the appeal body can appoint a (temporary) 
replacement.

Regards,   Martin.

---

From: Peter Saint-Andre <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 1 Oct 2021 10:56:34 -0600

> now.  This issue will close on the 12th of October.

FWIW, based on the discussion in our meeting this week, here is the text
I currently have in my working draft:

###

In the case of vacancies, the RSAB shall operate as follows:

* Voting on approval of policy definition documents produced by
  the RSWG shall be delayed until the vacancy or vacancies have
  been filled.
* Activities related to implementation of policies already defined
  shall continue as normal.

Because vacancies effectively prevent the RSAB from approving new
policy changes, such vacancies should be filled with all due speed.

###

Peter

---

From: Michael StJohns <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 1 Oct 2021 13:17:00 -0400

> policy changes, such vacancies should be filled with all due speed.

I see I missed too much from the meeting.  The has too many failure 
modes, the hostage possibilities notwithstanding.

The RSCE is a voting member of the RSAB and is a hired position. "All 
due speed" could be anywhere from a month to a year (or never) depending 
on how attractive we make the job.  I *really* don't think you want to 
wait that long for the RSAB to approve documents.  AIRC (without 
referring to the current document), there is no process for appointing 
an interim RSCE nor should there be.

I would also anticipate something like a 1-3 month period filling the 
ISE's slot if that becomes vacant.

My original note suggesting that the RSAB always has a quorum, and that 
a majority of the specified membership (e.g. with 5 members, that's 3), 
not a majority of the active membership,  are required to approve 
anything is probably a better approach than "no documents can be 
approved if the RSAB has any vacancy".

Or am I missing something that was discussed during the call that 
mitigates either of the above items?

Later, Mike

ps - the document we're writing should probably indicate the original 
membership of the RSAB and their approval of this document in addition 
to any last call actions from the community.

---

From: Eric Rescorla <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 1 Oct 2021 10:25:00 -0700

> approved if the RSAB has any vacancy".

FWIW, this seems to me like this seems like the right approach as well.

-Ekr

> --
> Rfced-future mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.iab.org/mailman/listinfo/rfced-future
>

---

From: Eliot Lear <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 1 Oct 2021 21:52:38 +0200

Ok, because I've been active in this discussion without my chair hat, 
I'm going to ask Brian to manage closing this one; and so... chair hat 
still off, but seeking a bit of compromise.

> FWIW, this seems to me like this seems like the right approach as well.

I wonder if we can run with something like this in addition to some 
nominal delay (pick a value) so that processes have a chance to run and 
Lars' concern can be addressed.

Eliot

---

From: Brian Rosen <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 1 Oct 2021 15:56:52 -0400

Someone want to suggest text?

Brian

> On Oct 1, 2021, at 3:52 PM, Eliot Lear <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> Ok, because I've been active in this discussion without my chair hat, I'm going to ask Brian to manage closing this one; and so... chair hat still off, but seeking a bit of compromise.
> 
> 
> 
> I wonder if we can run with something like this in addition to some nominal delay (pick a value) so that processes have a chance to run and Lars' concern can be addressed.
> 
> Eliot
>

---

From: Eliot Lear <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 1 Oct 2021 22:04:40 +0200

So something like Mike's but with an addendum:

> The RSAB may approve documents when a majority of the specified 
> membership is present, but must delay such votes for a period of up to 
> two months when stream manager representative seat is vacant.

That should give most processes a chance to run, and isn't a 
ridiculously long period for editorial process changes and it doesn't 
require that the RSCE position be filled.

?

Eliot

On 01.10.21 21:56, Brian Rosen wrote:
>> On Oct 1, 2021, at 3:52 PM, Eliot Lear <[email-masked] 
>> <mailto:[email-masked]>> wrote:
>>
>> I'm going to ask Brian to manage closing this one; and so... chair 
>> hat still off, but seeking a bit of compromise.
>>
>>
>> nominal delay (pick a value) so that processes have a chance to run 
>> and Lars' concern can be addressed.
>>
>> Eliot
>>
>
>

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 2 Oct 2021 09:08:31 +1300

###

* Voting on approval of policy definition documents produced by
  the RSWG shall be delayed until the vacancy or vacancies have
  been filled or for four weeks, whichever is sooner.

* Each stream may appoint an interim replacement to fill a vacant
  seat until the end of its normal term, by a process of its own
  choosing, and must do so within four weeks of a vacancy arising.

###

(And yes, that might still leave some corner cases.)

Regards,
    The other Brian

---

From: Michael StJohns <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 1 Oct 2021 16:10:38 -0400

> and Lars' concern can be addressed.

I submit that Lars' concerns aren't all that well founded in the "Soon 
to be New Reality" (tm).   Basically, the IESG, IRSG (or IRTF chair - 
not sure what arrangement the IRTF chair will come to), and the IAB are 
responsible for appointing their own members to the RSAB and replacing 
them as necessary.  Unlike the RSOC, each of those groups has an ex lege 
member on the RSAB that's there to look out for their interests (or the 
interests of their streams more properly).   Those groups will know of 
documents coming down the road in sufficient time to make sure there is 
someone to cast their stream's vote.

If there's a need for a delay, that's a matter of courtesy based on a 
request from the body to the RSAB to give them a day or two to pick a 
stuckee from their own membership to at least cover the vote 
temporarily.  It doesn't need to be legislated to provide such a delay, 
nor should there ever be a case where the sending body is surprised 
about a vote.  In any case, it's the sending body's responsibility to 
make sure someone is there to cover their interests, not the 
responsibility of the RSAB  to twiddle it's thumbs waiting around for 
something that mostly should have been predictable - barring of course 
death, injury, illness, or someone who has basically decided to not even 
phone in their work.   Then there's the "well, I was just appointed, 
give me a month or so to get up to speed before I can vote...." problem 
which again is not the responsibility of the RSAB nor of the other 
sending bodies to address.

That's all a long winded way of suggesting that there's not a need for a 
specified delay as you suggest.

Later, Mike

---

From: Michael StJohns <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 1 Oct 2021 18:11:59 -0400

>> Someone want to suggest text?
The RSAB has a quorum for business if at least a majority of the 
specified positions are non-vacant.  A yes vote of members in number 
equal to ROUNDUP((number of RSAB voting positions +1)/2) - e.g. the 
majority of specified positions, not the majority of non-vacant 
positions - is required for approval for publication of any documents by 
the RSAB.  The RSAB may not approve documents if it lacks a quorum, but 
may take any other actions within its purview through unanimous consent 
of the existing members (e.g. 2 in the current size body).  <<3 yes 
votes are needed for a 5 person body, if 3 seats are vacant documents 
may not be approved>>

>    been filled or for four weeks, whichever is sooner.
Voting on approval of documents proposed to the RSAB by the RSWG shall 
not be delayed by a vacancy in any RSAB position unless the RSAB also 
has a majority of its positions vacant (e.g. has no quorum).  However, 
if the RSAB has a quorum, it may choose to honor (or reject) a request 
from one of the appointing entities for no more than a two week delay to 
allow for them to  designate a person of their choice to vote on their 
behalf until replaced or appointed formally. << given that with 1 member 
missing we still require 3 votes, if they are split 2/2 they may want to 
wait for a tie breaker.  If the document is less controversial and 
already has 3 votes not sure why they should wait, especially if it has 
down stream implications...>>
>    choosing, and must do so within four weeks of a vacancy arising.
Each stream may appoint a replacement to fill a vacant seat either as a 
interim measure or as a permanent measure until the end of the seat's 
normal term.  <<I think  "process of its own" is covered elsewhere>>
>    shall continue as normal.
<works>

---

From: Eliot Lear <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 2 Oct 2021 13:09:46 +0200

It'd be good to get people's views on all of this on the table now so we 
can close as quickly as possible.

Eliot

On 02.10.21 00:11, Michael StJohns wrote:
> positions - is required for approval for publication of any documents 
> by the RSAB.  The RSAB may not approve documents if it lacks a quorum, 
> but may take any other actions within its purview through unanimous 
> consent of the existing members (e.g. 2 in the current size body).  
> <<3 yes votes are needed for a 5 person body, if 3 seats are vacant 
> documents may not be approved>>
>
> from one of the appointing entities for no more than a two week delay 
> to allow for them to  designate a person of their choice to vote on 
> their behalf until replaced or appointed formally. << given that with 
> 1 member missing we still require 3 votes, if they are split 2/2 they 
> may want to wait for a tie breaker.  If the document is less 
> controversial and already has 3 votes not sure why they should wait, 
> especially if it has down stream implications...>>
>>
> Each stream may appoint a replacement to fill a vacant seat either as 
> a interim measure or as a permanent measure until the end of the 
> seat's normal term.  <<I think  "process of its own" is covered 
> elsewhere>>
>>

---

From: Russ Housley <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 2 Oct 2021 11:45:03 -0400

On Fri, Oct 1, 2021 at 10:17 AM Michael StJohns <[email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]>> wrote:

This approach seems better than potential paralysis.

Russ

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 3 Oct 2021 10:31:21 +1300

> votes are needed for a 5 person body, if 3 seats are vacant documents 

I'm confused about why we need to specify any of that for a 5-member body.
It's over-engineered IMHO.

> down stream implications...>>

Ditto. The four week delay is to put pressure on the stream concerned to
fill its vacancy urgently. 

> normal term.  <<I think  "process of its own" is covered elsewhere>>

Ack.

   Brian

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 3 Oct 2021 10:34:20 +1300

> This approach seems better than potential paralysis.

Yes, and indeed the RSCE role cannot be filled on a 4 week timescale;
that has to be limited to the stream reps.

(The Independent stream will have a little work to do to cover this
point, but I think that should be handled later.)

    Brian

---

From: Eliot Lear <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 3 Oct 2021 10:46:14 +0200

Hi again with no hats,

>> This approach seems better than potential paralysis.

While I largely agree, I suggest compromise for two reasons: first, on 
the call, the consensus was VERY strong to simply stop work: I stood 
alone in raising the concern.  Second, the average rate of change on 
these documents is something like 5 1/2 years. Waiting a few months 
shouldn't cause substantial problems, and if it would, I would expect a 
stream to step on the gas.  I just want us to guard against intentional 
filibustering.  Recalls *cannot* be the answer to that, since they've 
never been shown to actually work.

Eliot

---

From: "Adrian Farrel" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 3 Oct 2021 10:31:20 +0100

I think I was the interfering person who raised the idea that the RSAB should not be able to act with unfilled places.

My logic was that I would not want the RSAB making a decision that had negative impact on the IETF Stream while the IETF Stream Head’s delegate was unappointed.

But there is a way around this…

Let’s change
OLD
   The voting members of the RSAB shall be as follows:

   o  One delegate representing the IETF stream, appointed by the IESG

   o  One delegate representing the IAB stream, appointed by the IAB

   o  One delegate representing the IRTF stream, appointed by the IRTF
      Chair

   o  The Independent Submissions Editor [RFC8730]

   o  The RFC Series Consulting Editor
NEW
   The voting members of the RSAB shall be as follows:

   o  The IETF stream head or their delegate appointed by the IESG

   o  The IAB stream head or their delegate appointed by the IAB

   o  The IRTF stream head or their delegate appointed by the IRTF Chair

   o  The Independent Submissions Editor [RFC8730]

   o  The RFC Series Consulting Editor
END

In this way, the failure to appoint a delegate for any of the 'major' streams defaults back to the stream head, and the post is automatically filled.

Our only risks become:
- The IAB fails to appoint an IRTF chair (we have bigger problems!)
- The IAB fails to appoint and ISE (we also have bigger problems)
- The LLC fails to run the process to appoint the RSCE to successful completion

I suggest, therefore, that, with my proposed change, we can dispense with language about vacancies.

Cheers,
Adrian

From: Rfced-future <[email-masked]> On Behalf Of Eliot Lear
Sent: 03 October 2021 09:46
To: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [Rfced-future] Issues 82 and 84: Vacancy and Quorum

Hi again with no hats,
    a majority of the specified membership (e.g. with 5 members, that's 
3),

While I largely agree, I suggest compromise for two reasons: first, on the call, the consensus was VERY strong to simply stop work: I stood alone in raising the concern.  Second, the average rate of change on these documents is something like 5 1/2 years.  Waiting a few months shouldn't cause substantial problems, and if it would, I would expect a stream to step on the gas.  I just want us to guard against intentional filibustering.  Recalls cannot be the answer to that, since they've never been shown to actually work.
Eliot

---

From: Eliot Lear <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 3 Oct 2021 11:39:19 +0200

Again, no hats.  This is fine with me, so long as we define what a 
"stream head" is.

Eliot

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 4 Oct 2021 08:48:31 +1300

> "stream head" is.

Yes, this is has the benefit of
a) no need for a quorum rule; the RSAB is always quorate.
b) no need for a delay when a vacancy occurs
c) strong incentive for the "stream head" to ensure that a vacancy is filled ASAP.

   Brian

>> I think I was the interfering person who raised the idea that the RSAB 
should not be able to act with unfilled places.
>>
>> My logic was that I would not want the RSAB making a decision that had 
negative impact on the IETF Stream while the IETF Stream Head’s delegate was unappointed.
>> While I largely agree, I suggest compromise for two reasons: first, on 
the call, the consensus was VERY strong to simply stop work: I stood alone in raising the concern.  Second, the average rate of change on these documents is something like 5 1/2 years.  Waiting a few months shouldn't cause substantial problems, and if it would, I would expect a stream to step on the gas.  I just want us to guard against intentional filibustering. 
 Recalls cannot be the answer to that, since they've never been shown to actually work.

---

From: "Adrian Farrel" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 3 Oct 2021 21:06:09 +0100

Well, of course, I thought this would be in 8729, but "ouch".

That means we have to use "the responsible person for each stream" instead of stream head. I think we can simply and explicitly call these out as...

    o  The IETF chair or their delegate appointed by the IESG

    o  The IAB chair or their delegate appointed by the IAB

    o  The IRTF chair or their delegate appointed by the IRTF Chair

    o  The Independent Submissions Editor [RFC8730] or their delegate

Adrian

-----Original Message-----
From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]> 
Sent: 03 October 2021 20:49
To: Eliot Lear <[email-masked]>; [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [Rfced-future] Issues 82 and 84: Vacancy and Quorum

   Brian

---

From: Peter Saint-Andre <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 3 Oct 2021 14:09:14 -0600

On 10/3/21 3:39 AM, Eliot Lear wrote:
> Again, no hats.  This is fine with me,

+1

> so long as we define what a 
> "stream head" is.

Is a "stream head" the same as a "stream manager"?

Although see also 
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rfced-future/10z-2RgRU1CN0-7U9wP58PFhFQY/ 
(where we uncovered some confusion about the identities of the stream 
managers).

Peter

---

From: "Adrian Farrel" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 3 Oct 2021 21:11:31 +0100

Yeah, I meant "stream manager"

-----Original Message-----
From: Peter Saint-Andre <[email-masked]> 
Sent: 03 October 2021 21:09
To: Eliot Lear <[email-masked]>; [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [Rfced-future] Issues 82 and 84: Vacancy and Quorum

+1

Although see also 

Peter

---

From: Jay Daley <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 4 Oct 2021 10:17:56 +1300

> On 4/10/2021, at 9:06 AM, Adrian Farrel <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 

It would be useful to plan for the situation where we don’t have an RSCE and don’t expect to have one for an extended period (e.g. illness, someone leaving and a new recruitment needed, someone leaving and a process similar to this being followed).  If we follow the text, the LLC could appoint someone quickly and on a short term contract as the RSCE and fulfil this requirement.  Is that what people are expecting, does that cover every situation and is everyone comfortable with that, or does this need to be specifically called out as say "The RFC Series Consulting Editor or an interim replacement appointed by the IETF LLC if the RSCE is indisposed or the position is vacant"?

Jay

-- 
Jay Daley
IETF Executive Director
[email-masked]

---

From: "Adrian Farrel" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 3 Oct 2021 22:28:40 +0100

wfm

-----Original Message-----
From: Jay Daley <[email-masked]> 
Sent: 03 October 2021 22:18
To: [email-masked]
Cc: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>; Eliot Lear <[email-masked]>; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [Rfced-future] Issues 82 and 84: Vacancy and Quorum

Jay

-- 
Jay Daley
IETF Executive Director
[email-masked]

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 4 Oct 2021 11:34:51 +1300

Ditto. Over-specifying is never going to cover everything, so I think we should leave it at that.

   Brian

On 04-Oct-21 10:28, Adrian Farrel wrote:
> It would be useful to plan for the situation where we don’t have an RSCE and don’t expect to have one for an extended period (e.g. illness, someone leaving and a new recruitment needed, someone leaving 
and a process similar to this being followed).  If we follow the text, the LLC could appoint someone quickly and on a short term contract as the RSCE and fulfil this requirement.  Is that what people are expecting, does 
that cover every situation and is everyone comfortable with that, or does 
this need to be specifically called out as say "The RFC Series Consulting 
Editor or an interim replacement appointed by the IETF LLC if the RSCE is 
indisposed or the position is vacant"?
>> the call, the consensus was VERY strong to simply stop work: I stood alone in raising the concern.  Second, the average rate of change on these 
documents is something like 5 1/2 years.  Waiting a few months shouldn't cause substantial problems, and if it would, I would expect a stream to step on the gas.  I just want us to guard against intentional filibustering.

---

From: Mark Nottingham <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 4 Oct 2021 10:04:34 +1100

That seems reasonable, but it's more than possible that a temporary recruit can't be found quickly, or there are other circumstances that make this impractical. 

AIUI the main issue that the forced delay is trying to address is stream representation, which isn't a problem when the RSCE is temporarily absent. So if we're going to have language that forced a delay upon absence (and I share Mike's discomfort with baking this into the document), we should consider qualifying that in the case of the RSCE. Otherwise, we might find ourselves in a situation where the community wants to do something, the stream managers all agree, but we can't do it because we're temporarily missing an RSCE.

Cheers,

> On 4 Oct 2021, at 8:17 am, Jay Daley <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> 
> 

--
Mark Nottingham   https://www.mnot.net/

---

From: Jay Daley <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 4 Oct 2021 12:11:49 +1300

> On 4/10/2021, at 12:04 PM, Mark Nottingham <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 

I agree and I prefer that - The RSAB should be able to continue without an RSCE.

Jay

-- 
Jay Daley
IETF Executive Director
[email-masked]

---

From: Peter Saint-Andre <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 3 Oct 2021 17:53:59 -0600

> I agree and I prefer that - The RSAB should be able to continue without an RSCE.

Right. Perhaps that's why Adrian's text said "or delegate" for every
voting member except the RSCE.

Peter

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 4 Oct 2021 13:44:26 +1300

> voting member except the RSCE.

Exactly. So for all streams *except* editorial, replacement of the RSAB
members is automatic, which will always give at least 4 members. That seems
necessary and sufficient. (If something is contentious enough that it
doesn't pass, it can never proceed until there is an (acting) RSCE,
but is that really a problem?)

   Brian

---

From: Eliot Lear <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 4 Oct 2021 06:24:34 +0200

Again, no hats.  I agree with the below.

---

From: Colin Perkins <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 4 Oct 2021 15:49:05 +0100

> On 1 Oct 2021, at 21:08, Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 

Four weeks is far too short for this. Nothing the RSAB does is that urgent, and I’d be surprised if the appointing bodies can come to a decision that quickly.

I do not understand the rush to be able to disenfranchise a stream in this case. Nothing will break if the RSAB doesn’t get to approve documents, even if that takes several months to make an appointment. Things might break if it approves something without a check from a particular stream.

Colin

---

From: Colin Perkins <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 4 Oct 2021 16:02:30 +0100

How does this help?

The risk is that, e.g., the IRTF chair or ISE disappears without naming a delegate. We want to avoid the RSAB accidentally approving a document detrimental to that stream while a replacement is chosen, which may take time. 

Colin

> On 3 Oct 2021, at 21:06, Adrian Farrel <[email-masked]> wrote:
>

---

From: Eliot Lear <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 4 Oct 2021 17:11:18 +0200

<no hats>

> The risk is that, e.g., the IRTF chair or ISE disappears without naming a delegate. We want to avoid the RSAB accidentally approving a document detrimental to that stream while a replacement is cho…

These are two slightly different cases but they amount to the same 
answer.  In the normal course of business, presumably the IRSG will 
delegate this role to someone other than the IRTF chair, and the IRTF 
chair serves as a backstop.  In the case of the ISE, he or she will 
delegate, and serve as a backstop.  What happens if both disappear?  
That's turtles all the way down, and I suggest that we not define policy 
quite that far yet.

Eliot

---

From: Colin Perkins <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 4 Oct 2021 16:35:06 +0100

> On 4 Oct 2021, at 16:11, Eliot Lear <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> <no hats>
> 
> These are two slightly different cases but they amount to the same answer.  In the normal course of business, presumably the IRSG will delegate this role to someone other than the IRTF chair, and the IRTF chair serves as a backstop.  In the case of the ISE, he or she will delegate, and serve as a backstop.  What happens if both disappear?  That's turtles all the way down, and I suggest that we not define policy quite that far yet.

That was kind-of my point. It’s okay if the RSAB stops while a role is vacant, because the relevant appointing body will appoint a replacement or a delegate in a reasonable time (and I count a few months as reasonable… recruitment can take time).

And if we hit the situation where one of the roles is vacant, no delegate can be found that’s acceptable, and the appointing body can’t, or won’t, appoint a replacement to the role, then we have bigger concerns, and the process should stop until they’re resolved. 

Colin

---

From: Eliot Lear <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 4 Oct 2021 19:37:48 +0200

<again no hats>

On 04.10.21 17:35, Colin Perkins wrote:
>
> And if we hit the situation where one of the roles is vacant, no 
> delegate can be found that’s acceptable, and the appointing body 
> can’t, or won’t, appoint a replacement to the role, then we have 
> bigger concerns, and the process /should/ stop until they’re resolved.

So if the IAB wishes to stop the RSAB process, all they would need to do 
is withdraw their delegate.  Why should that be a tolerable state?  
Adrian's proposal gives you two ways to avoid a vacancy.  Turning this 
around, why would that be problematic?

Eliot

---

From: Colin Perkins <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 4 Oct 2021 18:51:15 +0100

> On 4 Oct 2021, at 18:37, Eliot Lear <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> 
> <again no hats>
> 
> So if the IAB wishes to stop the RSAB process, all they would need to do is withdraw their delegate.  Why should that be a tolerable state? 
> 

In what way is it tolerable? The community would be in uproar if the IAB tried to do such a thing. The IAB not following their stated procedures to appoint is an appealable action. 

Colin

---

From: Peter Saint-Andre <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 4 Oct 2021 11:56:47 -0600

> I do not understand the rush to be able to disenfranchise a stream in this case. Nothing will break if the RSAB doesn’t get to approve documents, even if that takes several months to make an appoin…

AIUI, Adrian's proposal is that we would clarify the matter of who is a 
voting member and remove this text about how the RSAB would operate in 
the case of vacancies (don't try to solve the problem in two places, 
just provide incentives for the relevant bodies to fill any vacancies).

Peter

---

From: Colin Perkins <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 4 Oct 2021 19:29:54 +0100

> On 4 Oct 2021, at 18:56, Peter Saint-Andre <[email-masked]> wrote:
> AIUI, Adrian's proposal is that we would clarify the matter of who is a voting member and remove this text about how the RSAB would operate in the case of vacancies (don't try to solve the problem in two places, just provide incentives for the relevant bodies to fill any vacancies).

Sure, but unless I’ve misunderstood, it doesn’t protect a stream from the RSAB acting against the stream's interest, accidentally or otherwise, while there’s a vacancy for the representative of that stream.

-- 
Colin Perkins
https://csperkins.org/

---

From: Eliot Lear <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 4 Oct 2021 20:40:37 +0200

<no hats>

On 04.10.21 19:51, Colin Perkins wrote:
>
> So if the IAB wishes to stop the RSAB process, all they would need to 
> do is withdraw their delegate.  Why should that be a tolerable state?
>
>
> In what way is it tolerable? The community would be in uproar if the 
> IAB tried to do such a thing. The IAB not following their stated 
> procedures to appoint is an appealable action. 

To whom?  And what procedures?

Eliot

---

From: "Joel M. Halpern" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 4 Oct 2021 14:50:50 -0400

While in theory the IAB failing to appoint is appealable, as has been 
said several time such appeals can be very difficult.

Particularly in this case, since the appeal would have to go to the ISOC 
Board of Directors.  And I would expect the to want a very clear case 
before they would invoke their authority.

Yours,
Joel

On 10/4/2021 1:51 PM, Colin Perkins wrote:
> In what way is it tolerable? The community would be in uproar if the IAB 
> tried to do such a thing. The IAB not following their stated procedures 
> to appoint is an appealable action.
> 
> Colin
> 
> 
> 
>

---

From: "Joel M. Halpern" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 4 Oct 2021 14:53:31 -0400

As I understand the approach being suggested, if there is no 
representative from the IRTF stream, IAB stream, or IETF stream, then 
the chair of the respective body IS the representative.  if they don't 
do the job of looking out for the interests of their own stream, that is 
a very different problem.  The absence of an ISE presumably could be 
longer.  And while I am sensitive to that stream being damaged, I am not 
willing to complicate a clean procedure for that corner case.

Yours,
Joel

---

From: Colin Perkins <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 4 Oct 2021 19:54:42 +0100

> On 4 Oct 2021, at 19:40, Eliot Lear <[email-masked]> wrote:
> <no hats>
> 

The RSAB members in question are the IETF chair, IAB chair, IRTF chair, and the ISE. The IETF chair is appointed by the nomcom and confirmed by the IAB, the others are appointed by the IAB, right?

So, for the IAB to stop the process for longer than it takes to appoint to one of those roles, they'd have to announce that, for example, they’d decided not to appoint a new ISE. 

If the IAB tried to do that without community agreement, I imagine we’d have a much bigger issue to resolve than whether the RSAB could approve a new document. 

Colin

---

From: Colin Perkins <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 4 Oct 2021 19:56:24 +0100

The issue is what happens if the chair of that body is incapacitated, or somehow removed from the role, and it takes time to appoint a replacement. 

Colin

> On 4 Oct 2021, at 19:53, Joel M. Halpern <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> As I understand the approach being suggested, if there is no representative from the IRTF stream, IAB stream, or IETF stream, then the chair of the respective body IS the representative.  if they don't do the job of looking out for the interests of their own stream, that is a very different problem.  The absence of an ISE presumably could be longer.  And while I am sensitive to that stream being damaged, I am not willing to complicate a clean procedure for that corner case.
> 
> Yours,
> Joel
>

---

From: "Joel M. Halpern" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 4 Oct 2021 15:01:41 -0400

if the chair is incapacitated, the boy can appoint a representative.. 
If the chair is incapacitated and the body is unable to appoint a 
representative, then it seems a bit strange to declare that the world stops.

Given that one would also have to presume either ill will or a 
sufficiently odd case that the other representatives (whoa re all 
experienced IETF participants) wouldn't even notice the potential stream 
impact, I am loath to craft procedures for this.

Yours,
Joel

---

From: Peter Saint-Andre <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 4 Oct 2021 13:04:01 -0600

> The issue is what happens if the chair of that body is incapacitated, or somehow removed from the role, and it takes time to appoint a replacement.

Colin, are you specifically concerned about the IRTF?

It strikes me as unlikely that:

1. The IAB or IESG representative on RSAB becomes vacant.

2. The IAB or IESG chair role is also vacant.

3. The remaining IAB or IESG members cannot name a new delegate.

However, for the IRTF (and ISE) I can understand that the vacancy 
scenarios aren't as far-fetched.

Peter

---

From: "Adrian Farrel" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 4 Oct 2021 20:18:12 +0100

I am saying that the IAB (or any other stream) cannot usefully withdraw their delegate because the default is that the stream manager is the stuckee. That is, if the IAB withdraws their delegate then the IAB chair is back on the RSAB: whether they turn up is another matter, and *that* might play into quorum discussions.

[For the avoidance of doubt, I am using IAB as an example. I am not implying this situation is any more or less likely to happen with the IAB.]

A 

From: Eliot Lear <[email-masked]> 
Sent: 04 October 2021 18:38
To: Colin Perkins <[email-masked]>
Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [Rfced-future] Issues 82 and 84: Vacancy and Quorum

<again no hats>

So if the IAB wishes to stop the RSAB process, all they would need to do is withdraw their delegate.  Why should that be a tolerable state?  Adrian's proposal gives you two ways to avoid a vacancy.  Turning this around, why would that be problematic?

Eliot

---

From: "Adrian Farrel" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 4 Oct 2021 20:18:12 +0100

St. P. captures my intent.

No one is disenfranchised. See also another response about to be sent.

A

-----Original Message-----
From: Rfced-future <[email-masked]> On Behalf Of Peter Saint-Andre
Sent: 04 October 2021 18:57
To: Colin Perkins <[email-masked]>
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [Rfced-future] Issues 82 and 84: Vacancy and Quorum

Peter

---

From: Colin Perkins <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 4 Oct 2021 20:20:53 +0100

> On 4 Oct 2021, at 20:04, Peter Saint-Andre <[email-masked]> wrote:
> However, for the IRTF (and ISE) I can understand that the vacancy scenarios aren't as far-fetched.

For the IETF, I’m not concerned. The IESG would be able to appoint a temporary chair until the nomcom could find a replacement. Also, there are enough people that understand the concerns of the IETF stream that I don’t see the potential for anything too problematic to be approved in the interim, even if the role was left vacant. 

For the IAB, I’m not especially concerned, because the IAB can elect a new chair within a couple of weeks, using the same procedure it uses to elect a chair each year. 

For the ISE or the IRTF, finding a replacement would involve the IAB making an appointment, which could take time, and the number of people who are familiar with the concerns of those streams is significantly less than for the IETF stream, so there’s more risk that a decision is made that causes a problem for those streams by accident. 

I don’t understand what the RSAB would need to approve so urgently that it can’t wait for the IAB to make an appointment to those roles. And I’m not persuaded by the argument that the IAB might try to derail the process by not making an appointment. 

Colin

---

From: "Adrian Farrel" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 4 Oct 2021 20:21:32 +0100

[Bottom-post]

> Sure, but unless I’ve misunderstood, it doesn’t protect a stream from the RSAB acting against the stream's interest, accidentally or otherwise, while there’s a vacancy for the representative of tha…

[AF] Protection is achieved in all cases except the absence of the stream manager. So, for example, if the IRTF delegate drops off the RSAB, and if the IRTF chair is MIA, and if the IAB doesn't appoint an IRTF chair, then the IRTF stream is vulnerable. Let's not over-engineer this?

A

---

From: Colin Perkins <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 4 Oct 2021 20:24:11 +0100

> On 4 Oct 2021, at 20:21, Adrian Farrel <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> [Bottom-post]
> 

All I’m saying is, in that case when the IRTF chair is MIA, wait for the IAB to make a replacement appointment before the RSAB proceeds. 

Colin

---

From: "Adrian Farrel" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 4 Oct 2021 20:25:09 +0100

If the stream manager (IRTF chair, ISE) has not delegated, and goes missing, and is not replaced quickly, then there is a hole.

Let's fill the hole easily.

IRTF stream delegate is appointed by the IRTF chair and the IRTF.
ISE stream delegate is appointed by the ISE and the IAB.

Done.
A

-----Original Message-----
From: Rfced-future <[email-masked]> On Behalf Of Colin Perkins
Sent: 04 October 2021 20:21
To: Peter Saint-Andre <[email-masked]>
Cc: [email-masked]; Joel M. Halpern <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [Rfced-future] Issues 82 and 84: Vacancy and Quorum

Colin

---

From: Colin Perkins <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 4 Oct 2021 20:31:02 +0100

Or RSAB approval of new documents is paused until the IAB appoints a replacement. 

But, I think we’ve both made our points here, so I’ll let others have their say. 
Colin

> On 4 Oct 2021, at 20:25, Adrian Farrel <[email-masked]> wrote:
>

---

From: Mark Nottingham <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 5 Oct 2021 10:09:39 +1100

> On 5 Oct 2021, at 6:25 am, Adrian Farrel <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 

Is the idea here that these delegates are pre-approved; i.e., they're warm standby?

Cheers,

---

From: "Martin Thomson" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 05 Oct 2021 10:46:31 +1100

> 3. The remaining IAB or IESG members cannot name a new delegate.

What seems far more likely here is that one of these bodies fails to nominate a delegate, such that the responsibility falls on the chair.  THEN the chair is forced to take a leave absence.

---

From: Martin J. Dürst <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 5 Oct 2021 09:26:24 +0900

> Is the idea here that these delegates are pre-approved; i.e., they're warm standby?

My understanding and my preference is that these delegates are not warm 
standbys, they are the actual representatives on the RSAB. The 
IESG/IAB/IRTF chairs and the ISE themselves would then be the warm standbys.

Also, my preference is that these delegates can be appointed very 
quickly in a temporary process (which wouldn't be "until the end of the 
term", but "until we found and appointed a delegate in a more formal 
process). Let's say the IAB delegate falls seriously ill. It should be 
possible for the IAB chair to just ask one of the IAB members (or 
somebody else) to sit in as a temporary delegate on the next RSAB 
teleconf. Once the actual delegate recovers, they'd be back in action.

I agree with Colin that the community might be in uproar if the IAB (on 
whatever other organization) tried to boycott the process by slowwalking 
it. But slowwalking isn't very easily detected. And it could be that's 
not really that much on purpose. With a deadline to act, what's going on 
will be detected rather easily. Without a deadline, it may take half a 
year or a year for the community to be in uproar.

With regards to appeals, it's not even so much the problem of which 
body. The main problem is the remedy. Even if the appeal is approved, 
the body that lost the appeal may still drag their feet. The appeals 
body would have to have the authority to appoint a representative or to 
allow the RSAB to proceed without the representative.

Regards,   Martin.

---

From: Mark Nottingham <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 5 Oct 2021 11:49:14 +1100

> On 5 Oct 2021, at 11:26 am, Martin J. Dürst <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> My understanding and my preference is that these delegates are not warm standbys, they are the actual representatives on the RSAB. The IESG/IAB/IRTF chairs and the ISE themselves would then be the warm standbys.

Ah. This arrangement makes sense for the IESG and IAB, because they're effectively pools of candidates, who are relatively available and accountable to the chair of each body, and have already volunteered for duty (even if the exact duty is TBD). 

I'm not sure it's as sensible for the IRTF and ISE, because both of these are effectively single-person positions. Both have communities that they can draw upon for delegates, but that's likely to require both a fair amount of arm-twisting and also ongoing overhead to make sure that the delegate and the IRTF Chair / ISE are aligned in their thinking and communicating well. 

I had been assuming that the IRTF Chair and ISE would both represent their streams on the RSAB as stream managers, since they're both in the best position to ascertain the needs and concerns of their streams. Creating a layer of abstraction here just to protect against their unexpected absence doesn't seem efficient, and may cause problems.

So, I think whatever rules we come up with here need to distinguish between an RSAB member who's a representative of a body (and therefore can be easily replaced if unavailable) and an appointee (such as the IRTF Chair or ISE).

I think the scenarios we're considering here are:

1) RSAB member is temporarily unavailable (sick, personal issues, etc.) for a small amount of time (say, less than some number of weeks)
2) RSAB member steps down in an ordered fashion (gives notice but continues to serve until a replacement is found)
3) RSAB member steps down in an unordered fashion, or is removed (replacement needs to be found, potentially taking some time)

IMO the right outcomes would be:

1) a) for bodies: body sends someone else; may be be pre-arranged
     b) for appointees: RSAB pauses decisions until they return or arrange a delegate, unless there is something truly urgent (as judged by the RSWG)
2) a) and b) RSAB continues to function
3) a) for bodies: body sends someone else
     b) for appointees: Appointing body does a limited appointment for sole purpose of RSAB representation until position is filled, with preference to historic appointees (e.g., previous ISEs/IRTF Chairs).

#3 is obviously the difficult one. 

Cheers,

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 5 Oct 2021 15:15:14 +1300

On 05-Oct-21 13:49, Mark Nottingham wrote:
> I had been assuming that the IRTF Chair and ISE would both represent their streams on the RSAB as stream managers, since they're both in the best position to ascertain the needs and concerns of their streams. Creating 
a layer of abstraction here just to protect against their unexpected absence doesn't seem efficient, and may cause problems.
> 1) RSAB member is temporarily unavailable (sick, personal issues, etc.) 
for a small amount of time (say, less than some number of weeks)
> #3 is obviously the difficult one. 

Which, I think, is why it appears to be common ground that if there is suddenly no RSCE, that should not stop the RSAB from functioning. For all the other positions, there *is* a standing body (IESG for the IETF stream, 
IAB for the others) so they can just appoint someone ASAP. There's no need for this draft to tell them how to do that, or whether they need a hot standby; just that they must do it. [I wanted to define ASAP as 4 weeks, but if we don't define it, that's OK too.]

   Brian

---

From: Mark Nottingham <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 5 Oct 2021 13:40:58 +1100

> On 5 Oct 2021, at 1:15 pm, Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 

If the intent is that the IAB can appoint a delegate to the RSAB on behalf of the IRTF Chair or ISE in their absence, I can get behind that. However, I didn't get to that conclusion by just reading the proposal, so perhaps some additional text would help.

Cheers,

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 5 Oct 2021 16:51:46 +1300

On 05-Oct-21 15:40, Mark Nottingham wrote:
> If the intent is that the IAB can appoint a delegate to the RSAB on behalf of the IRTF Chair or ISE in their absence, I can get behind that. However, I didn't get to that conclusion by just > reading the proposal, so perhaps some additional text would help.
Since the IAB appoints the IRTF Chair and the ISE, they logically must appoint their (acting) replacements. I don't think that has been documented in many of the process documents to date.

   Brian

---

From: Mirja Kuehlewind <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 5 Oct 2021 15:40:48 +0200

As it seems more opinion might be useful in this case, here is my person view:

I think we should not over-specify this. If a position gets vacant, I think there should be an interest by the respective body to fill that position and each body can decide if it needs to be filled on an interim-basis (where the IAB would be the responsible body if the ISE or IRTF chair position is vacant).

If the body is not able to fill the position quickly, not even on an interim basis, (or would deliberatively try to block the process), we might have bigger problems, so I don’t see a harm in requiring the RSAB to not approval any new documents when a position is empty. However, I would also be fine to not have this as a requirement but rather as a recommendation, because if a body fails to appoint someone in time, it's actually their fault.

So if the process works well, I would see the following happen: e.g. if the ISE “disappears” for some reason, I would expect that the RSAB, when there is something ready to approve, go to the IAB and say: hey can you send us someone? If the say no, the RSAB can either say: this is not time critical, we just wait; or if it is urgent for some reason, they might as well go on. In any case, if this leads to a situation where we end up with a problem, we can hopefully still fix it later or as a last resort, we have the appeals process.

Mirja

> On 5. Oct 2021, at 05:51, Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]> wrote:
>

---

From: Christian Huitema <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 5 Oct 2021 11:33:52 -0700

On 10/4/2021 8:51 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>>> On 5 Oct 2021, at 1:15 pm, Brian E Carpenter<[email-masked]>  wrote:
>>>
>>> Which, I think, is why it appears to be common ground that if there is suddenly no RSCE, that should not stop the RSAB from functioning. For all the other positions, there*is*  a standing body (IESG for the IETF stream,

Did we not have a case a few years back when a delegate to one the IETF 
boards just disappeared for several months? If I recall correctly the 
whole operation went into paralysis because nominating a replacement 
required first recalling the incumbent. People were not comfortable 
doing that merely because of missed meetings, what if the person was 
just recovering from an illness, etc.? Given that precedent, I don't 
think that in the same circumstances the IAB would quickly replace the 
IRTF chair or the ISE. And AFAIK there is no process to appoint a 
pro-temp interim replacement.

-- Christian Huitema

---

From: Brian Rosen <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 5 Oct 2021 14:37:25 -0400

I’m not sensing convergence, and we need it.

Could we have text proposals please.  Keep it simple.

Brian

> On Oct 5, 2021, at 2:33 PM, Christian Huitema <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
>>>> On 5 Oct 2021, at 1:15 pm, Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]> <mailto:[email-masked]> wrote:
>>>> 
> Did we not have a case a few years back when a delegate to one the IETF boards just disappeared for several months? If I recall correctly the whole operation went into paralysis because nominating a replacement required first recalling the incumbent. People were not comfortable doing that merely because of missed meetings, what if the person was just recovering from an illness, etc.? Given that precedent, I don't think that in the same circumstances the IAB would quickly replace the IRTF chair or the ISE. And AFAIK there is no process to appoint a pro-temp interim replacement.
> 
> -- Christian Huitema
> 
> --

---

From: Peter Saint-Andre <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 5 Oct 2021 13:35:10 -0600

> pro-temp interim replacement.

AIUI, we're not talking about replacing the IRTF chair or the ISE, we're 
talking about appointing a delegate to (temporarily) fill a specific 
role on the RSAB, which is one of the responsibilities of the IRTF chair 
or ISE.

Peter

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 6 Oct 2021 11:13:19 +1300

> role on the RSAB, which is one of the responsibilities of the IRTF chair 

Correct. And I think a simple statement that the appointing body must fill
vacancies ASAP and that the RSAB is quorate in the absence of an RSCE
will do what we want without (+1 to Mirja) overspecifying. Adrian's
text proposal was pretty close.

In answer to Christian, yes, the IAOC (and Trust) had an absentee member
but was *not* paralysed because it still had a quorum. Actually the IAB
had an absentee member once too; also not a real problem.

   Brian

---

From: Peter Saint-Andre <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 5 Oct 2021 17:32:41 -0600

> text proposal was pretty close.

Here's a slightly modified version of Adrian's proposal:

###

The voting members of the RSAB are as follows:

* The IETF chair or their delegate appointed by the IESG
* The IAB chair or their delegate appointed by the IAB
* The IRTF chair or their delegate appointed by the IRTF Chair
* The Independent Submissions Editor (ISE) {{RFC8730}} or their
   delegate appointed by the ISE
* The RFC Series Consulting Editor

The appointing bodies shall determine their own processes for
appointing delegates, such as provision for an open nominations
period. If it becomes necessary to replace such a delegate for
any reason, then for the sake of continuity the appointing body
should name a new delegate to complete the former delegate's term.
Appointing bodies should ensure that voting members are seated at
all times and should fill any vacancies with all due speed, if
necessary on a temporary basis. In the case that the IRTF chair or
ISE is incapacitated or otherwise unable to appoint a delegate,
this responsibility shall fall to the IAB as the appointing body
for the IRTF chair and ISE respectively.

The RSAB is considered quorate even if lacks one or more of its
voting members.

###

I'm not sure we need to say anything specifically about the RSCE, but I 
suppose there's no harm.

Peter

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 6 Oct 2021 14:13:11 +1300

wfm

Regards
   Brian Carpenter

---

From: Mirja Kuehlewind <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 6 Oct 2021 09:45:41 +0200

This text below fine for me. Just to be clear we could add another sentence at the end spelling out that it is expected to usually make any approvals at full quorum, so maybe:

OLD

NEW
While the RSAB is considered quorate even if it lacks one or more of its
voting members, it is expected that document approvals are usually done under full quorum, expect for time-critical documents under exceptional circumstances.

Does that help?

Mirja

> On 6. Oct 2021, at 01:32, Peter Saint-Andre <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> I'm not sure we need to say anything specifically about the RSCE, but I suppose there's no harm.
> 
> Peter
> 
> --

---

From: Colin Perkins <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 6 Oct 2021 08:57:32 +0100

Hi,

Mirja’s text helps, but I’d much prefer that the RSAB required all voting members to be quorate. For a strategy-setting body, there shouldn’t be time critical documents to approve.

Colin

> On 6 Oct 2021, at 08:45, Mirja Kuehlewind <[email-masked]> wrote:
>

---

From: Eliot Lear <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 6 Oct 2021 10:30:51 +0200

Hi,

<no hats on>

I would not support these changes for the very many reasons I have 
already mentioned, and I don't believe I am alone.  I prefer the text 
Peter has offered because it properly motivates the constituent 
organizations to do the right thing.  The text below does the opposite.

Eliot

---

From: Eliot Lear <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 6 Oct 2021 10:39:10 +0200

Just to add- my concerns extend to both Mirja's text and Colin's 
amendment.  They are both non-starters for me.  I can settle for short 
delays as I proposed, but organizations must be properly motivated to do 
their jobs, and not become obstacles to others doing theirs.

Eliot

On 06.10.21 10:30, Eliot Lear wrote:
>> Mirja’s text helps, but I’d much prefer that the RSAB required all 
>> voting members to be quorate. For a strategy-setting body, there 
>> shouldn’t be time critical documents to approve.
>>
>> Colin
>>
>>
>>
>>> This text below fine for me. Just to be clear we could add another 
>>> sentence at the end spelling out that it is expected to usually make 
>>> any approvals at full quorum, so maybe:
>>>
>>> OLD
>>> voting members, it is expected that document approvals are usually 
>>> done under full quorum, expect for time-critical documents under 
>>> exceptional circumstances.
>>>
>>> Does that help?
>>>
>>> Mirja
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 5 Oct 2021, at 1:15 pm, Brian E 
>>>>>>>>>> Carpenter<[email-masked]> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Which, I think, is why it appears to be common ground that if 
>>>>>>>>>> there is suddenly no RSCE, that should not stop the RSAB from 
>>>>>>>>>> functioning. For all the other positions, there*is*  a 
>>>>>>>>>> standing body (IESG for the IETF stream,
>>>>>>>>>> IAB for the others) so they can just appoint someone ASAP. 
>>>>>>>>>> There's no need for this draft to tell them how to do that, 
>>>>>>>>>> or whether they need a hot standby; just that they must do 
>>>>>>>>>> it. [I wanted to define ASAP as 4 weeks, but if we don't 
>>>>>>>>>> define it, that's OK too.]
>>>>>>>>> If the intent is that the IAB can appoint a delegate to the 
>>>>>>>>> RSAB on behalf of the IRTF Chair or ISE in their absence, I 
>>>>>>>>> can get behind that. However, I didn't get to that conclusion 
>>>>>>>>> by just > reading the proposal, so perhaps some additional 
>>>>>>>>> text would help.
>>>>>>>> Since the IAB appoints the IRTF Chair and the ISE, they 
>>>>>>>> logically must appoint their (acting) replacements. I don't 
>>>>>>>> think that has been documented in many of the process documents 
>>>>>>>> to date.

---

From: Mirja Kuehlewind <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 6 Oct 2021 11:33:41 +0200

For me the point point is that even a longer delay is okay if that doesn’t really have any real implications. Let’s assume there is a unexpected vacancy for either the ISE or IRTF chair and the search process to find a new person is about 2-3 month (which is normal when doing "their job properly" as you say below): why not wait for the new ISE or IRTF chair if there is nothing urgent rather than trying to find some interim replacement for the RASB?

> On 6. Oct 2021, at 10:39, Eliot Lear <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> Just to add- my concerns extend to both Mirja's text and Colin's amendment.  They are both non-starters for me.  I can settle for short delays as I proposed, but organizations must be properly motivated to do their jobs, and not become obstacles to others doing theirs.
> 
> Eliot
> 
>> I would not support these changes for the very many reasons I have already mentioned, and I don't believe I am alone.  I prefer the text Peter has offered because it properly motivates the constituent organizations to do the right thing.  The text below does the opposite. 
>> 
>> Eliot 
>>

---

From: Brian Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 6 Oct 2021 22:49:37 +1300

Agreed. Also the RSCE is a member & by construction cannot be replaced
rapidly, so cannot be required for a quorum. I don't see any excuse for the
other streams to have long gaps, assuming that acting members would be
appointed for unplanned vacancies.

Regards,
    Brian Carpenter
    (via tiny screen & keyboard)

On Wed, 6 Oct 2021, 21:39 Eliot Lear, <[email-masked]> wrote:

> I would not support these changes for the very many reasons I have already
> mentioned, and I don't believe I am alone.  I prefer the text Peter has
> offered because it properly motivates the constituent organizations to do
> the right thing.  The text below does the opposite.
>
> Eliot
>
> Mirja’s text helps, but I’d much prefer that the RSAB required all voting
> members to be quorate. For a strategy-setting body, there shouldn’t be time
> critical documents to approve.
>
> Colin
>
>
>
> On 6 Oct 2021, at 08:45, Mirja Kuehlewind <[email-masked]>
> <[email-masked]> wrote:
>
> sentence at the end spelling out that it is expected to usually make any
> approvals at full quorum, so maybe:
>
> OLD
> voting members, it is expected that document approvals are usually done
> under full quorum, expect for time-critical documents under exceptional
> circumstances.
>
> Does that help?
>
> Mirja
>
>
>
> On 6. Oct 2021, at 01:32, Peter Saint-Andre <[email-masked]>
> <[email-masked]> wrote:
>
> On 5 Oct 2021, at 1:15 pm, Brian E Carpenter<[email-masked]>
> <[email-masked]>  wrote:
>
> Which, I think, is why it appears to be common ground that if there is
> suddenly no RSCE, that should not stop the RSAB from functioning. For all
> the other positions, there*is*  a standing body (IESG for the IETF stream,
> IAB for the others) so they can just appoint someone ASAP. There's no need
> for this draft to tell them how to do that, or whether they need a hot
> standby; just that they must do it. [I wanted to define ASAP as 4 weeks,
> but if we don't define it, that's OK too.]
>
> If the intent is that the IAB can appoint a delegate to the RSAB on behalf
> of the IRTF Chair or ISE in their absence, I can get behind that. However,
> I didn't get to that conclusion by just > reading the proposal, so perhaps
> some additional text would help.
>
> Since the IAB appoints the IRTF Chair and the ISE, they logically must
> appoint their (acting) replacements. I don't think that has been documented
> in many of the process documents to date.
>

---

From: Colin Perkins <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 6 Oct 2021 10:54:11 +0100

> On 6 Oct 2021, at 10:49, Brian Carpenter <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> Agreed. Also the RSCE is a member & by construction cannot be replaced rapidly, so cannot be required for a quorum. I don't see any excuse for the other streams to have long gaps, assuming that acting members would be appointed for unplanned vacancies.

That’s a big assumption… it makes sense for IETF and IAB streams, since there’s a clear pool to appoint a replacement from, but I’m not sure it’s reasonable for IRTF and ISE.

Colin

---

From: Eliot Lear <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 6 Oct 2021 12:20:15 +0200

<no hats again>

Mirja,

On 06.10.21 11:33, Mirja Kuehlewind wrote:
> For me the point point is that even a longer delay is okay if that doesn’t really have any real implications.

But it does.  The work of the RSAB stops.  The work of the RSWG sits in 
limbo for an *indefinite* period of time.  That's disrespectful of the 
community who would have worked on the series evolution, and it's just 
bad process design.

> Let’s assume there is a unexpected vacancy for either the ISE or IRTF chair and the search process to find a new person is about 2-3 month (which is normal when doing "their job properly" as you say below): why not wait for the new ISE or IRTF chair if there is nothing urgent rather than trying to find some interim replacement for the RASB?

We would not be having this conversation if it was just about when 
things go right.  I am trying to guard against the case where things go 
wrong.  So too are you.  You do not want to see the streams trampled.  
Neither do I.  But neither can a stream simply block work indefinitely.

Here's an example of how things could go wrong in the IAB: Suppose Colin 
wins the lottery and decides he never wants to answer another email ever 
again.  In that case, the IAB would have to select a new IRTF chair.  In 
so doing they discover philosophical differences amongst themselves 
about how the role should be viewed, and decide to go on an extensive 
soul searching journey, or otherwise simply can't muster the votes to 
approve a replacement.  That might take a great many months.  All 
parties could even be said to have the best of intentions, and yet under 
your proposal the work of the RSAB would stall.  Why should the work of 
the RSWG and other streams suffer because of that?

And that works in reverse.  I wouldn't want the IAB to rush an 
appointment of the IRTF chair when it has doubts, in order to satisfy 
RSAB requirements.  Better to find someone to represent IRTF interests 
in the short term, just as you have appointed John Levine to keep the 
ship afloat in the RFC Editor function while we do our thing here.

A proposal has been put forth that guards the interests of the streams.  
Can you articulate what the problem is with Peter's proposed text?

Eliot

ps:

People will note that unlike other issues, I have a particular passion 
for this one.  That is because I am fully convinced that the above 
scenario would happen over time.  Maybe not with this IAB or the next, 
but it would happen.

---

From: "Salz, Rich" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 6 Oct 2021 13:21:37 +0000

>    Mirja’s text helps, but I’d much prefer that the RSAB required all voting members to be quorate. For a strategy-setting body, there shouldn’t be time critical documents to approve.

I tend to agree, but fine 100% a little high.  Maybe allow one absence.

---

From: Peter Saint-Andre <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 6 Oct 2021 12:10:01 -0600

> That’s a big assumption… it makes sense for IETF and IAB streams, since there’s a clear pool to appoint a replacement from, but I’m not sure it’s reasonable for IRTF and ISE.

Yes, and this is something we need to take into account.

The text I proposed included a proviso that, as a fallback, the IAB 
could appoint a temporary delegate for the IRTF or ISE seat on the RSAB.

If a proposal of significance comes before the RSAB while such a 
temporary delegate is seated, couldn't the delegate ballot CONCERN in 
RSAB voting while the impact on the relevant stream is fully assessed? 
That might provide assurances that a proposal would be pushed through 
without considering the needs of all the streams.

Peter

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 7 Oct 2021 09:05:54 +1300

>> Agreed. Also the RSCE is a member & by construction cannot be replaced 
rapidly, so cannot be required for a quorum. I don't see any excuse for the other streams to have long gaps, assuming that acting members would be 
appointed for unplanned vacancies.
> That’s a big assumption… it makes sense for IETF and IAB streams, since there’s a clear pool to appoint a replacement from, but I’m not sure it’s reasonable for IRTF and ISE.

I'm not talking about an acting IRTF Chair or acting ISE; I'm talking about acting members of the RSAB. I do agree that RSAB decisions, by their nature, are never urgent; however, that doesn't mean that some months of delay is acceptable either. We need to find some middle ground.

   Brian

---

From: Brian Rosen <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 7 Oct 2021 13:14:50 -0400

There have been some private discussions of the current state of the text, but we don’t seem to be converging.

I think the current proposed text is:

Mirja proposed replacing the last line with:
While the RSAB is considered quorate even if it lacks one or more of its
voting members, it is expected that document approvals are usually done under full quorum, expect for time-critical documents under exceptional circumstances.

Could we please see where we are on this by an informal poll:
1. Can you live with the proposed text without Mirja’s edit
2. Can you live with the proposed text with Mirja’s edit
3. If you can live with both, which do you prefer?

Brian

> On Oct 6, 2021, at 4:05 PM, Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]> wrote:
>

---

From: Peter Saint-Andre <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 7 Oct 2021 11:35:04 -0600

On 10/7/21 11:14 AM, Brian Rosen wrote:
> There have been some private discussions of the current state of the 
> text, but we don’t seem to be converging.
> 

Mirja's edit seems good, although concerns have been raised before about 
requiring the RSCE to be seated (since it's harder to fill that vacancy).

Peter

---

From: Brian Rosen <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 7 Oct 2021 14:20:38 -0400

Mirja’s edit still says it’s quorate with a vacancy, so there should be no holding up of important progress in the RSWG in the absence of an RSCE.  
It’s up to the RSAB members still in office to determine what is “time-critical” and “exceptional circumstances”, right?

Brian

> On Oct 7, 2021, at 1:35 PM, Peter Saint-Andre <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> Mirja's edit seems good, although concerns have been raised before about requiring the RSCE to be seated (since it's harder to fill that vacancy).
> 
> Peter

---

From: Russ Housley <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 7 Oct 2021 14:30:06 -0400

> On Oct 7, 2021, at 1:14 PM, Brian Rosen <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 

I choose 3, with a preference for including Mirja's text.

That said, the phrase "such as provision for an open nominations period" does not really add value, so I think it should be dropped.

Russ

---

From: Colin Perkins <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 7 Oct 2021 19:47:33 +0100

> On 7 Oct 2021, at 19:30, Russ Housley <[email-masked]> wrote:
>> On Oct 7, 2021, at 1:14 PM, Brian Rosen <[email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]>> wrote:
>> 

I can live with option 2 (the proposed text with Mirja’s edit), but I’d prefer the RSAB require all voting members to be seated to be quorate.

> That said, the phrase "such as provision for an open nominations period" does not really add value, so I think it should be dropped.

No objection.

Colin

---

From: "Salz, Rich" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 7 Oct 2021 18:50:35 +0000

➢ I think the current proposed text is:

That doesn’t instill confidence: is that the proposed text or not? :)

The text is kinda sloppy but I can live with its intent.  I prefer Mirja's suggestion but can live without it.

Bikeshedding:
The appointing bodies shall determine their own processes for appointing
delegates, but they should allow for appointing a replacement with all due
speed should that become necessary. In the case that the IRTF chair or ISE is
incapacitated or otherwise unable to appoint a delegate, this responsibility
falls to the IAB.

While the RSAB is always quorate, it is expected that document approvals are
usually done under full quorum, expect for time-critical documents under
exceptional circumstances.

---

From: Eliot Lear <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 7 Oct 2021 22:49:51 +0200

<no hats>

> 3. If you can live with both, which do you prefer?

I can live with (3).  I'd suggest editorially that the word "quorate" 
but instead simply say that the "RSAB may conduct business".  Also, 
s/expect/except/, and s/it is expected/it is desirable that/, since I 
understand that text not to be intended to be normative.

Eliot

---

From: Jay Daley <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 8 Oct 2021 10:44:24 +1300

> On 8/10/2021, at 6:14 AM, Brian Rosen <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 

Three things about this text, even with Mirja’s edit:

1.  allows the extreme case of a single person on the RSAB being a quorum;
2.  does not handle temporary replacement of the RSCE for such things as maternity leave, etc;
3.  "full quorum" generally means "quorate" not "all voting members" and so this is the wrong term to use.

From the LLC perspective there is only one of these that I have a view on, 2 above, and I recommend the following text is added as a general statement in the I-D (not in this section) to address this:

> "In the case that the RSCE is expected to be unavailable for an extended period then the IETF LLC may appoint a Temporary RSCE through whatever recruitment process it considers appropriate.  A Temporary RSCE acts as the RSCE in all aspects during their term of appointment". 

There’s no need for the LLC to have a view on the rest of this, but if you want to address my points 1 and 3 above then I suggest a further edit to the last sentence to remove the need for the RSCE, fix the quorum wording, limit the number of absences and simplify the language.

> "The ordinary quorum of the RSAB is all voting members. The RSAB may also consider itself quorate in the absence of the RSCE and in the absence of no more than one of the other voting members, solely for the purpose of approving time-critical documents."

Jay

> 
> Brian
> 
>> On Oct 6, 2021, at 4:05 PM, Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]>> wrote:
>> 
>>>> On 6 Oct 2021, at 10:49, Brian Carpenter <[email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]>> 
>> wrote:
>>>> 
>> [email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]>

-- 
Jay Daley
IETF Executive Director
[email-masked]

---

From: Jay Daley <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 8 Oct 2021 10:49:10 +1300

> On 8/10/2021, at 10:44 AM, Jay Daley <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
>> On 8/10/2021, at 6:14 AM, Brian Rosen <[email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]>> wrote:
>> 

Sorry that included something I changed my mind about as I was writing, so that’s a bit confused.  My recommended text is:

> "The ordinary quorum of the RSAB is all voting members. The RSAB may also consider itself quorate in the absence of no more than two voting members, solely for the purpose of approving time-critical documents."

Jay

>>> https://www.iab.org/mailman/listinfo/rfced-future <https://www.iab.org/mailman/listinfo/rfced-future>
>> 
>> -- 
> [email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]>
> -- 
> https://www.iab.org/mailman/listinfo/rfced-future <https://www.iab.org/mailman/listinfo/rfced-future>
-- 
Jay Daley
IETF Executive Director
[email-masked]

---

From: Mark Nottingham <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 8 Oct 2021 10:23:03 +1100

#3 - I can live with both. Given that the spec already contains encouragement to fill vacancies with all due speed, I think Mirja's edit is unnecessary (and it could cause contention about what qualifies as 'exceptional', but I can live with it.

Nit - The proposed text implies that the ISE and RSCE can both appoint a delegate, but that isn't said explicitly anywhere. I'd suggest adding a parenthetical 'or their delegate' to those bullet items in 3.1.2.

Cheers,

> On 8 Oct 2021, at 4:14 am, Brian Rosen <[email-masked]> wrote:
>

---

From: "Martin Thomson" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 08 Oct 2021 10:45:09 +1100

> 3. If you can live with both, which do you prefer?

3.  Though I don't concretely know what Mirja's edit means.  Does it mean that the RSAB might be permitted to add small, bounded delays in order to allow all delegates to participate?  Or does it mean something else?

I also don't really like the implication that there might be an emergency and would prefer to have that clause struck.

---

From: Peter Saint-Andre <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 7 Oct 2021 17:55:43 -0600

> Nit - The proposed text implies that the ISE and RSCE can both appoint a delegate, but that isn't said explicitly anywhere. I'd suggest adding a parenthetical 'or their delegate' to those bullet it…

AIUI the intent is that the RSCE cannot appoint a delegate, but any 
other voting member or appointing body can.

Peter

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 8 Oct 2021 13:09:09 +1300

>> 1. Can you live with the proposed text without Mirja’s edit

Yes

>> 2. Can you live with the proposed text with Mirja’s edit

Yes-

>> 3. If you can live with both, which do you prefer?

#1

Regards
   Brian Carpenter

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 8 Oct 2021 13:11:55 +1300

On 08-Oct-21 10:49, Jay Daley wrote:
...

> Sorry that included something I changed my mind about as I was writing, 
>> "The ordinary quorum of the RSAB is all voting members. The RSAB may also consider itself quorate in the absence of no more than two voting members, solely for the purpose of approving time-critic…

I could live with that too.

Brian C

---

From: Peter Saint-Andre <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 7 Oct 2021 18:12:51 -0600

On 10/7/21 3:49 PM, Jay Daley wrote:
> 
> 
>> On 8/10/2021, at 10:44 AM, Jay Daley <[email-masked] 
>> <mailto:[email-masked]>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>     voting members, it is expected that document approvals are
>>>     usually done under full quorum, expect for time-critical
>>>     documents under exceptional circumstances.
>>>
>>>
>>>

Right, we need to fix that.

>> 2.  does not handle temporary replacement of the RSCE for such things 

What's the process? Would the IETF LLC choose the temporary delegate? 
(That seems sensible.)

>> and so this is the wrong term to use.

ACK.

>> From the LLC perspective there is only one of these that I have a view 
>> on, 2 above, and I recommend the following text is added as a general 
>> statement in the I-D (not in this section) to address this:
>>
>>> "In the case that the RSCE is expected to be unavailable for an 
>>> extended period then the IETF LLC may appoint a Temporary RSCE 
>>> through whatever recruitment process it considers appropriate.  A 
>>> Temporary RSCE acts as the RSCE in all aspects during their term of 
>>> appointment". 

WFM.

>> There’s no need for the LLC to have a view on the rest of this, but if 
>> you want to address my points 1 and 3 above then I suggest a further 
>> edit to the last sentence to remove the need for the RSCE, fix the 
>> quorum wording, limit the number of absences and simplify the language.
>>
>>> "The ordinary quorum of the RSAB is all voting members. The RSAB may 
>>> also consider itself quorate in the absence of the RSCE and in the 
>>> absence of no more than one of the other voting members, solely for 
>>> the purpose of approving time-critical documents."
> 
>> "The ordinary quorum of the RSAB is all voting members. The RSAB may 
>> also consider itself quorate in the absence of no more than two voting 
>> members, solely for the purpose of approving time-critical documents."

Although I share Martin's concern about the definition of time-critical, 
I can live with that.

Peter

---

From: Michael StJohns <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 7 Oct 2021 20:35:31 -0400

> It’s up to the RSAB members still in office to determine what is “time-critical” and “exceptional circumstances”, right?

I'm still confused.

How many votes does it take to approve a document with 1? 2? 3? 4? 
vacancies under either version of this?

If it's a majority of the incumbent members, then 1 member-> 1 vote, 2 
members etc -> 2 votes, 3 -> 2 votes, 4-> 3 votes, 5 -> 3 votes.

If it's a majority of the whole number of voting positions, then its 1-> 
not possible, 2 -> not possible, 3->3, 4->3, 5->3.

If the quorum is 4 (Mirja's proposal) with a majority of the incumbents, 
then 3 votes are always required.

If the quorum is 3 (my proposal, for document approval), and its the 
majority of whole number of voting positions, then it's also 3.

Regardless, you need to tweak Mirja's text as "full quorum" means 
"minimum number of people necessary to do business" which she stated 
could happen with 1 less member than the "full number of voting 
positions" so it's wrong as stated.

Try

"As most business of the RSAB is expected to be done electronically, the 
quorum for regular business is the existence of at least three incumbent 
voting members.  Three yes votes are required to approve any document 
regardless of the number of incumbent members. If the RSAB lacks a 
quorum, it may only take such actions as may be specified as non-quorum 
actions elsewhere or by later documents, and it may take them only by 
unanimous consent."

I tried to craft a replacement for Mirja's "we should wait for a full 
house" language, but given the possible issues with appointing either 
the ISE or the RSCE, (and perhaps the IRTF chair), I can't figure out 
anything that's any better than a motherhood statement here.  E.g. her 
language begs the questions of a) what is a time critical document?, and 
b) how long should the RSAB wait for non-time-critical documents?, and 
c) will a non-time-critical document devolve into a time-critical 
document after some period?

Twiddle the above for the appropriate quorum levels.

Later, Mike

---

From: Eliot Lear <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 8 Oct 2021 08:05:56 +0200

<No hats>

Hi Martin,

> 3.  Though I don't concretely know what Mirja's edit means.  Does it mean that the RSAB might be permitted to add small, bounded delays in order to allow all delegates to participate?  Or does it m…

This is the issue; I don't see it meaning that.  I would rather we go 
back to small bounded delays. And I would like to simplify the text.

    Quorum of the RSAB shall consist of 4/5 of voting members. Document
    approvals SHOULD be delayed when any voting members are not present,
    but for no longer than the earlier of three months or when all
    vacancies is filled.

This provides ample time for any reasonable process to conclude.

Eliot

---

From: Eliot Lear <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 8 Oct 2021 08:38:42 +0200

I don't know how rfced-future ended up in the Bcc, but please reply to 
this one.

On 08.10.21 08:05, Eliot Lear wrote:
>     Quorum of the RSAB shall consist of 4/5 of voting members.
>     Document approvals SHOULD be delayed when any voting members are
>     not present, but for no longer than the earlier of three months or
>     when all vacancies is filled.
>

---

From: Brian Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 8 Oct 2021 20:43:13 +1300

"present" implies physical presence. I hope most of the work can be done
online, mainly email. So try "available".

Regards,
    Brian Carpenter

On Fri, 8 Oct 2021, 19:39 Eliot Lear, <[email-masked]> wrote:

> This is the issue; I don't see it meaning that.  I would rather we go back
> to small bounded delays. And I would like to simplify the text.
>
> approvals SHOULD be delayed when any voting members are not present, but
> for no longer than the earlier of three months or when all vacancies is
> filled.
>

---

From: Eliot Lear <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 8 Oct 2021 09:53:59 +0200

Good point.

On 08.10.21 09:43, Brian Carpenter wrote:
> "present" implies physical presence. I hope most of the work can be 
> done online, mainly email. So try "available".
>
> Regards,
>     Brian Carpenter
>     I don't know how rfced-future ended up in the Bcc, but please
>     reply to this one.
>
>>     This is the issue; I don't see it meaning that.  I would rather
>>     we go back to small bounded delays. And I would like to simplify
>>     the text.
>>
>>         Document approvals SHOULD be delayed when any voting members
>>         are not present, but for no longer than the earlier of three
>>         months or when all vacancies is filled.
>>

---

From: Martin J. Dürst <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 8 Oct 2021 18:57:55 +0900

Sorry, very little time here.

> 3. If you can live with both, which do you prefer?

I can live with 1., although I have seen quite a few proposals in the 
followup discussion that improve it.

I cannot live with Mirja's edit. I think the idea behind it is a very 
good one, but in particular the last clause ("expect for time-critical 
documents under exceptional circumstances") is going too far.

Something like:

While the RSAB is considered quorate even if it lacks one or more of its
voting members, but it is expected that that document approvals are done 
under full quorum if this can be achieved without unnecessary delay.

The intent here is that the RSAB　wouln't vote if they know that the ISE 
or the IRTF (temporary) delegate will be appointed soon, but not if the 
IAB tells them that it might take three or more months to find a new ISE 
and they won't appoint a temporary delegate before that, or if somebody 
is "missing in action" and nobody has any idea what is going to happen 
and nobody wants to appoint a temporary replacement.

Please also remember that all the delegates are supposed to participate 
in the discussion in the RSWG, and the WG will usually take some time to 
complete their discussion. So requirements from the streams should 
really come in at that point, and should be well known, and the actual 
approval by the RSAB should in most cases just be a formality.

Regards,   Martin.

---

From: "Martin Thomson" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 08 Oct 2021 22:46:51 +1100

On Fri, Oct 8, 2021, at 17:38, Eliot Lear wrote:
>> This is the issue; I don't see it meaning that.  I would rather we go back to small bounded delays. And I would like to simplify the text.
>> 
>>> Quorum of the RSAB shall consist of 4/5 of voting members.  Document approvals SHOULD be delayed when any voting members are not present, but for no longer than the earlier of three months or when all vacancies is filled. 

I might prefer this also.

3 months is more than enough time for the appointing bodies  to find a delegate for *this* position.  That doesn't mean that they need to fill the full role, but find someone just for this function of the role.  3 months is also ample time to find someone for even the most difficult roles, I would hope.  I might have suggested a shorter period, but then the time to approve documents is almost always many times longer than that.

I will note that this means that a stream manager might be absent, with others potentially pushing through an outcome that is adverse for only that stream, but only really if the position can't be filled.

I do like that you have used "SHOULD" here to allow for judgment, without qualification.  That allows flexibility, but encourages that divergence is justified.

---

From: Martin J. Dürst <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 8 Oct 2021 21:01:16 +0900

Sorry, typos in important places:

> good one, but in particular the last clause ("expect for time-critical 

expect -> except

> voting members, but it is expected that that document approvals are done 

but it is -> it is

---

From: Mirja Kuehlewind <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 8 Oct 2021 15:07:41 +0200

The intention of my text was to document that the expectation is that usually all approvals are done with full quorum, but not making it a hard requirement and leave it to the RSAB to decide if something is critical or how long they would be will to wait. I proposed this under the assumption that most people on the RSAB will be reasonable and therefore there is no need to over specify here.

I could live with the text below but really think that naming any specific time frame is overdoing it.

> On 8. Oct 2021, at 13:46, Martin Thomson <[email-masked]> wrote:
>

---

From: Russ Housley <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 8 Oct 2021 10:58:07 -0400

Available is not the say as at the meeting (virtual of face-to-face).  How about "voting members in attendance"?

Russ

> On Oct 8, 2021, at 3:53 AM, Eliot Lear <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> Signed PGP part
> Good point.
> 
>> "present" implies physical presence. I hope most of the work can be done online, mainly email. So try "available".
>> 
>> Regards,
>>     Brian Carpenter
>> On Fri, 8 Oct 2021, 19:39 Eliot Lear, <[email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]>> wrote:
>> I don't know how rfced-future ended up in the Bcc, but please reply to this one.
>>

---

From: Eliot Lear <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 8 Oct 2021 17:31:11 +0200

Even better.

On 08.10.21 16:58, Russ Housley wrote:
> Available is not the say as at the meeting (virtual of face-to-face). 
>  How about "voting members in attendance"?
>
> Russ
>
>> On Oct 8, 2021, at 3:53 AM, Eliot Lear <[email-masked] 
>>>>     we go back to small bounded delays. And I would like to
>>>>     simplify the text.
>>>>
>>>>         Document approvals SHOULD be delayed when any voting
>>>>         members are not present, but for no longer than the earlier
>>>>         of three months or when all vacancies is filled.
>>>>

---

From: Brian Rosen <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 8 Oct 2021 11:41:47 -0400

Do I have this right?

Quorum of the RSAB shall consist of 4/5 of voting members in attendence.  
Document approvals SHOULD be delayed when any voting members 
are not present, but for no longer than the earlier of three months or 
when all vacancies is filled. 

Who cannot live with this text?

Brian

> On Oct 8, 2021, at 11:31 AM, Eliot Lear <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> Even better.
> 
> 
> 
>>> On Oct 8, 2021, at 3:53 AM, Eliot Lear <[email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]>> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Signed PGP part
>>> Good point.
>>>

---

From: Mirja Kuehlewind <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 8 Oct 2021 18:06:59 +0200

Sorry for bringing up another issue with this text:

In the document we often talk about the stream managers but this text takes about delegates. There seems to be some inconsistency here. I actually thought that the RSAB simply consists of all stream managers (where I guess the RSCB is the stream manager for the new editorial stream?). So far, stream managers have been selected by each stream based on their own process. Do we even need to document this here?

Mirja

> On 8. Oct 2021, at 17:41, Brian Rosen <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> Do I have this right?
>

---

From: Eliot Lear <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 8 Oct 2021 19:10:28 +0200

Hi Mirja,

The idea is that the IESG and IAB will send who they choose so as not to 
further burden the chairs.  Those are the delegates to which the text 
refers.  The same can be said of the IRTF if it so chooses, as well as 
the ISE.  However, we leave it to each stream to decide this.

Eliot

---

From: "Mirja Kühlewind (IETF)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 8 Oct 2021 19:16:38 +0200

Yes, the steam manager doesn’t habe to the chair. For the IAB that’s currently the case but it a separate role and last term these positions were held by different people. 

> Am 08.10.2021 um 19:10 schrieb Eliot Lear <[email-masked]>:
> 
> Hi Mirja,
> 
> The idea is that the IESG and IAB will send who they choose so as not to further burden the chairs.  Those are the delegates to which the text refers.  The same can be said of the IRTF if it so chooses, as well as the ISE.  However, we leave it to each stream to decide this.
> 
> Eliot
>

---

From: Eliot Lear <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 8 Oct 2021 19:36:28 +0200

Ah.  I see what you are saying.  I think what we are talking about below 
are RSAB "members".  That might be the right solve.

---

From: Peter Saint-Andre <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 8 Oct 2021 11:57:33 -0600

> Who cannot live with this text?

I don't like to widen the issue, but I'm thinking through how this 
quorum discussion interacts with the RSAB voting procedure documented in 
the "Workflow" section:

    1.  If a CONCERN exists, discussion will take place within the RSWG.
        Again, all RSAB members are expected to participate.

    2.  A proposal without any CONCERN positions is approved.  If
        substantial changes have been made in order to address CONCERN
        positions, an additional call for community input might be
        needed.

    3.  If, after a suitable period of time, any CONCERN positions
        remain, a formal vote of the RSAB is taken.  If a majority of
        RSAB members vote to approve, the proposal is approved.
        Otherwise, it is returned to the RSWG.  In the case of a tie, the
        proposal is approved.

Let's say there are 4 voting members. Two of them lodge positions of 
CONCERN. They go back and forth in the RSWG and RSAB. Eventually a 
formal vote is taken and 2 members vote YES even though 2 CONCERN 
positions remain. The proposal is approved.

Is this what we want?

Peter

---

From: Peter Saint-Andre <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 8 Oct 2021 13:57:25 -0600

> positions remain. The proposal is approved.

Here's an alternative model:

###

    2.  A proposal with a majority of YES positions and no CONCERN
        positions is approved.  If substantial changes have been made
        in order to address CONCERN positions, an additional call for
        community input might be needed.

    3.  If, after a suitable period of time, any CONCERN positions
        remain from one of the streams, the proposal is returned to
        the RSWG.

###

Yes, this requires unanimity among all of the streams. The downside is 
that one stream could hold up changes to policies governing the RFC 
Series as a whole. The upside is that no stream will be unhappy with 
such policies.

Or we could look at a model in which, say, one CONCERN position could be 
overridden.

Thoughts?

Peter

---

From: Eric Rescorla <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 8 Oct 2021 13:01:40 -0700

> Or we could look at a model in which, say, one CONCERN position could be

I don't think we should change things. Unanimity amongst the streams is a
bad
requirement.

-Ekr

Thoughts?

---

From: "Joel M. Halpern" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 8 Oct 2021 16:18:44 -0400

I am missing something in the reasoning in Peter's earlier message.

As I read it, the end state is 2 YES and 2 CONCERN.  That does not look 
like a Majority YES.  So I do not see why the text below then concludes 
that the document is approved.  It seems that it isn't.  Which is what 
we agreed we wanted.  (It also seems that with only 1 CONCERN, after 
discussion, it would be approved.  Which is also what we agreed we wanted.)

Yours,
Joel

On 10/8/2021 3:57 PM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
>> quorum discussion interacts with the RSAB voting procedure documented 
>> in the "Workflow" section:
>>

---

From: Eric Rescorla <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 8 Oct 2021 13:31:43 -0700

I believe the relevant text is the last sentence of 3.2.2.

"If, after a suitable period of time, any CONCERN positions remain, a
formal vote of the RSAB is taken. If a majority of RSAB members vote YES,
the proposal is approved. Otherwise, it is returned to the RSWG. In the
case of a tie, the proposal is approved."

Note, I'm not endorsing this text, as I don't yet know what I think, just
trying to understand what things currently say.

-Ekr

---

From: Peter Saint-Andre <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 8 Oct 2021 14:47:39 -0600

On 10/8/21 2:01 PM, Eric Rescorla wrote:
> 
> 
> On Fri, Oct 8, 2021 at 12:57 PM Peter Saint-Andre <[email-masked] 
> <mailto:[email-masked]>> wrote:
> 
> I don't think we should change things. Unanimity amongst the streams is 
> a bad
> requirement.

Quite possibly. I'm trying to understand what the real concerns are 
behind the continued tussle over this issue. Clearly some folks have 
very strong feelings about ensuring that the streams have voice in the 
policies that get approved. Perhaps the stream managers can have a 
conversation on or off list and come up with a proposal.

Peter

---

From: "Joel M. Halpern" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 8 Oct 2021 16:49:08 -0400

EKR pointed out to me that the issue is the clause saying that the 
proposal is approved in the case of a tie.  (I kept missing that 
re-reading it.  My bad.)

So lets just remove that clause.

Yours,
Joel

On 10/8/2021 4:18 PM, Joel M. Halpern wrote:
>> Or we could look at a model in which, say, one CONCERN position could 
>> be overridden.
>>
>> Thoughts?
>>
>> Peter
>>
>

---

From: Peter Saint-Andre <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 8 Oct 2021 15:29:02 -0600

> So lets just remove that clause.

Sounds good.

Peter

---

From: Martin J. Dürst <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 9 Oct 2021 08:34:38 +0900

> the ISE.  However, we leave it to each stream to decide this.

Yes, exactly. That's why I think we should take out "such as provision 
for an open nominations period". It's a way of finding people often used 
around the IETF, but if we look at it, we have:
- IAB: Appoints among IAB members, no open nominating period.
- IETF: I guess/we expect the same as for IAB.
- ISE: Will try to find somebody, probably with personal connections
   (because some arm twisting might be involved) or do it themselves
- IRTF (chair): Probably similar to ISE

We don't want to exclude the possibility of an open nominations period. 
But we shouldn't mention a low-probability appointing method while 
leaving out the more usual methods. So please let's just remove that phrase.

Regards,   Martin.

>> In the document we often talk about the stream managers but this text 
>> takes about delegates. There seems to be some inconsistency here. I 
>> actually thought that the RSAB simply consists of all stream managers 
>> (where I guess the RSCB is the stream manager for the new editorial 
>> stream?). So far, stream managers have been selected by each stream 
>> based on their own process. Do we even need to document this here?
>>
>> Mirja
>>
>>
>>
>>>>> Available is not the say as at the meeting (virtual of 
>>>>> face-to-face).  How about "voting members in attendance"?
>>>>>
>>>>> Russ
>>>>>
>>>>>>> "present" implies physical presence. I hope most of the work can 
>>>>>>> be done online, mainly email. So try "available".
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>>      Brian Carpenter
>>>>>>>>> 3.  Though I don't concretely know what Mirja's edit means.  
>>>>>>>>> Does it mean that the RSAB might be permitted to add small, 
>>>>>>>>> bounded delays in order to allow all delegates to participate?  
>>>>>>>>> Or does it mean something else?
>>>>>>>> not present, but for no longer than the earlier of three months 
>>>>>>>> or when all vacancies is filled.
>>>>>>>>

-- 
Prof. Dr.sc. Martin J. Dürst
Department of Intelligent Information Technology
College of Science and Engineering
Aoyama Gakuin University
Fuchinobe 5-1-10, Chuo-ku, Sagamihara
252-5258 Japan

---

From: Mark Nottingham <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 9 Oct 2021 13:33:05 +1100

> On 9 Oct 2021, at 2:41 am, Brian Rosen <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 

That unqualified SHOULD is likely to cause trouble at some point...

---

From: Peter Saint-Andre <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 8 Oct 2021 20:51:32 -0600

On 10/8/21 9:41 AM, Brian Rosen wrote:

>     Quorum of the RSAB shall consist of 4/5 of voting members 

This seems to assume the RSAB will always have five members. We might 
want to specify something like 60% or 70% or 80% or two-thirds (in the 
latter case, an RSAB with 6 voting members would be quorate if 4 members 
are available to vote).

> in
>     attendence.
>     are not present, 

Talk of attendance and being present makes it sound as if the RSAB makes 
decisions in real time. I'm not sure this is the case.

With regard to documents produced by the RSWG, if we take the IESG as a 
model then RSAB members would lodge public positions, and discuss those 
positions in both the RSAB and RSWG. The "Workflow" section seems to 
assume this, but it's not explicit. I suggest we make it so.

With regard to RSAB discussions that do not lead to approval of 
documents produced by the RSWG (e.g., consultations related to 
implementation decisions), it seems somewhat less important to specify 
the quorum and voting rules.

Peter

---

From: Eric Rescorla <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 8 Oct 2021 20:07:14 -0700

> latter case, an RSAB with 6 voting members would be quorate if 4 members

Given that any new member would require a new RFC--and it's reasonably
likely that this will not be for quite some time --, I would suggest that
we just  defer this issue until then

-Ekr

---

From: Michael StJohns <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 8 Oct 2021 23:25:48 -0400

On 10/8/2021 10:51 PM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
> latter case, an RSAB with 6 voting members would be quorate if 4 
> members are available to vote).

I suggested some text, but Brian thought the formula I suggested was too 
complicated and unnecessary as we had specified (at this time) only 5 
voting members.  4/5ths works (is descriptive) for a group of 5, but is 
somewhat less useful (less descriptive) for a group of 6 or 7.    2/3 of 
5 is 4, 2/3 of 6 is also 4.  2/3 of 7 is 5.  4/5ths of 6 is 5, 4/5 of 7 
is 6.

Then there is still the question of how many votes are required.   If 
it's a majority of the non-vacant positions, then its 3 of 4 or 3 of 5 
for a total membership of 5 and a 4/5ths quorum.

Which is why I keep coming back to "The quorum of the RSAB shall consist 
of  the [majority | 2/3ths | 4/5ths] of the specified voting positions.  
Approvals require yes votes from the majority of the specified voting 
positions"

I don't think we want the lack of a member to reduce the number of yes 
votes required to approve a document.

> Talk of attendance and being present makes it sound as if the RSAB 
> makes decisions in real time. I'm not sure this is the case.
It isn't.  I think what they mean is "Document approvals SHOULD be 
delayed if any voting member position is vacant".  But I agree with Mark 
N that the "SHOULD" here needs to be qualified at a minimum.
>
> With regard to documents produced by the RSWG, if we take the IESG as 
> a model then RSAB members would lodge public positions, and discuss 
> those positions in both the RSAB and RSWG. The "Workflow" section 
> seems to assume this, but it's not explicit. I suggest we make it so.

Could you expand on this please?  In the IESG, they don't provide a 
"recorded" position until the document is presented for publication 
after WG last call.  I would expect that the RSAB members positions in 
the RSWG would be more informal - as are most WG participant positions, 
and not necessarily subject to a formal recordation process beyond the 
normal WG mailing list give and take.

> the quorum and voting rules.

Same comment - could you expand on this?   Generally, most formal 
actions (e.g. document approval) should require a quorum and a specific 
voting threshold.  If you want to define a class of informal, non-quorum 
or voted actions, it might be useful to provide a worked example and 
some rather clear delineations between the two classes.

Later, Mike

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 9 Oct 2021 16:26:51 +1300

...
 
> decisions in real time. I'm not sure this is the case.

s/present/available/

   Brian

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 9 Oct 2021 16:38:49 +1300

>     when all vacancies is filled. 

s/delegate/member/
s/in attendance/being available/
s/any voting members/any voting members other than the RSCE/
s/present/available/

On the voting rules question, personally I would scrap all that and make
it much simpler. I like this: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2850.html#section-3.5
but then, I was the document editor ;-).

    Brian

---

From: Martin J. Dürst <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 9 Oct 2021 15:52:23 +0900

Hello Peter, others,

> assume this, but it's not explicit. I suggest we make it so.

Well, it's close to the IESG, but there's one important difference:
All RSAB members are supposed to actively participate in the RSWG, and 
make their positions and the concerns of their streams known early. And 
the WG, I'd guess, will take these concerns seriously. So the approval 
of documents should be much more just a formality than in the IESG, 
where discusses are quite frequent, because ADs read a document for the 
first time.

So please be careful about "make it so".

Regards,   Martin.

---

From: Eliot Lear <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 9 Oct 2021 08:54:32 +0200

We agreed earlier that the tie goes to the community.  Let's not reopen 
that text.

On 08.10.21 22:49, Joel M. Halpern wrote:
>> As I read it, the end state is 2 YES and 2 CONCERN.  That does not 
>> look like a Majority YES.  So I do not see why the text below then 
>> concludes that the document is approved.  It seems that it isn't.  
>> Which is what we agreed we wanted.  (It also seems that with only 1 
>> CONCERN, after discussion, it would be approved.  Which is also what 
>> we agreed we wanted.)
>>
>> Yours,
>> Joel
>>
>>>> quorum discussion interacts with the RSAB voting procedure 
>>>> documented in the "Workflow" section:
>>>>
>>>> Let's say there are 4 voting members. Two of them lodge positions 
>>>> of CONCERN. They go back and forth in the RSWG and RSAB. Eventually 
>>>> a formal vote is taken and 2 members vote YES even though 2 CONCERN 
>>> Yes, this requires unanimity among all of the streams. The downside 
>>> is that one stream could hold up changes to policies governing the 
>>> RFC Series as a whole. The upside is that no stream will be unhappy 
>>> with such policies.
>>>
>>> Or we could look at a model in which, say, one CONCERN position 
>>> could be overridden.
>>>
>>> Thoughts?
>>>
>>> Peter
>>>
>>
>

---

From: Brian Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 9 Oct 2021 20:24:35 +1300

What meeting? Why would the RSAB need actual meetings? Assuming they
participate in RSWG as required, most approvals should be non-contentious &
only need a short email exchange. (Of course, there may be exceptions, but
"available" covers all cases.)

Regards,
    Brian Carpenter

---

From: "Joel M. Halpern" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 9 Oct 2021 10:40:26 -0400

Given my experience with other IEtF-related bodies, I expect that things 
will work more smoothly if these folks meet face to face once in a 
while.  this can likely be coupled with the face to face meetings that I 
sincerely hope we will be able to re-start having soon.

(Side note: yes, I consider proposals that the IETF move to a pure 
virtual operation to be a mistake.  Note that even large open source 
communities that really do almost all their work remotely have 
consistently found it very helpful to have face to face meetings once in 
a while, and are pushing faster than I expected to resume those.)

Yours,
Joel

On 10/9/2021 3:24 AM, Brian Carpenter wrote:
> participate in RSWG as required, most approvals should be 
> non-contentious & only need a short email exchange. (Of course, there 
> may be exceptions, but "available" covers all cases.)
> 
> Regards,
>      Brian Carpenter
> On Sat, 9 Oct 2021, 03:58 Russ Housley, <[email-masked] 
> <mailto:[email-masked]>> wrote:
> 
>>>>         This is the issue; I don't see it meaning that.  I would
>>>>         rather we go back to small bounded delays. And I would like
>>>>         to simplify the text.
>>>>
>>>>             Quorum of the RSAB shall consist of 4/5 of voting
>>>>             members.  Document approvals SHOULD be delayed when any
>>>>             voting members are not present, but for no longer than
>>>>             the earlier of three months or when all vacancies is
>>>>             filled.
>>>>
>>>         <https://www.iab.org/mailman/listinfo/rfced-future>
>>>
>>>
>>
> 
>

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 10 Oct 2021 09:29:32 +1300

> sincerely hope we will be able to re-start having soon.

Certainly. What I dislike is any implication that routine decisions
*require* a meeting, whether in-person or on-line. 

> a while, and are pushing faster than I expected to resume those.)

I concur, but that discussion is for another place.

   Brian

---

From: "Joel M. Halpern" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 9 Oct 2021 16:42:21 -0400

In terms of regular business and continuing operatins, I agree that 
there is no need for face to face meetings.

But I never read the text as assuming that.  Even before Covid, the IESG 
and IAB generally met face-to-face on 4 occasions (the 3 IETF meetings 
and one retreat).  But had calls almost every week.  The trust similarly 
met face to face 3 to four times a year.  And had monthly calls.

Yours,
Joel