Subject: SUMMARY: serving on both IAB and IESG concurrently

From: James M Galvin <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2002 14:17:52 -0500 (EST)

SPEAKING AS EDITOR:

The starting draft added a rule that stated no person may serve on both
the IAB and IESG.  It was pointed out that the IETF Chair is in fact a
full voting member of both the IAB and IESG.  I have confirmed this fact
with RFC2850 (IAB Charter) and both the IAB and IESG.

I would therefore propose the following:

    PROPOSED CONSENSUS: No individual may serve on both the IAB and IESG
    except the IETF Chair who is explicitly a full voting member of both
    the IAB and IESG.

If you disagree with this summary please respond to the list.  If you
agree do nothing.  Note that a future message will propose actual and
specific textual changes to the document.

Jim

---

From: Thomas Narten <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2002 14:47:03 -0500

> agree do nothing.

General comment. I think it is a Good Thing to see support for a
proposed change rather than just disagreement with it. One thing that
I (as an AD) find rather problematic in practice is the large amount
of stuff that comes to my plate for which there isn't apparent strong
support. However, when I try and ask questions or push back, a common
response is "but no one objected". In all too many cases, this also
translates to "lack of serious scrutiny or review".

It is important to distinguish between "agree", "disagree", and "don't
care". There is a lot to be said about not making a change if the
majority of folk don't care and very few actually agree.

Thomas

---

From: Thomas Narten <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2002 15:18:02 -0500

>     except the IETF Chair who is explicitly a full voting member of both

Remind me please. What problem is this fixing?

Note: I would expect that no one would be so foolish as to want to do
this, and I wouldn't expect the nomcom to think this is a good
idea. But do we need an explicit rule forbidding it?

Thomas

---

From: James M Galvin <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2002 16:25:22 -0500 (EST)

On Fri, 29 Mar 2002, Thomas Narten wrote:

None specifically.  I have a note from some number of NOMCOM's ago that
this was an issue they would have liked clarification about.  I believed
it was the intent of the document and so I incorporated the change
directly considering it a clarification.

It was requested.  This group can certainly decide otherwise.

Jim

---

From: Randy Bush <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2002 16:29:56 -0800

>     except the IETF Chair who is explicitly a full voting member of both

i object.  this has barely started being discussed.

you seem to be railroading the entire process.  please take a vacation
or step down.

randy

---

From: James M Galvin <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2002 20:08:26 -0500 (EST)

It is a summary with a proposal as suggested by the process indicated
earlier today.

Jim

On Fri, 29 Mar 2002, Randy Bush wrote:

    Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2002 16:29:56 -0800
    From: Randy Bush <[email-masked]>
    To: James M Galvin <[email-masked]>
    Cc: [email-masked]
    Subject: Re: SUMMARY: serving on both IAB and IESG concurrently

    randy

---

From: Marshall Rose <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2002 19:17:00 -0800

> It is a summary with a proposal as suggested by the process indicated

jim - i know i'm coming into this a day late and a dollar short, but is there some reason for this urgency?

from my earlier note, it's clear that i'm from the "no changes" camp, but i just can't figure out what's going on here, process-wise...

/mtr

---

From: Leslie Daigle <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 30 Mar 2002 12:44:49 -0500

Howdy,

Personally, I'm in favour of not making any changes unless and
until the _problem_ has been clearly understood.  

We don't need to tie ourselves in knots with extraneous process
rules that will only trip us up when unforeseen circumstances
arise.

If there is a problem, let's discuss, solve and document it.  Otherwise, 
let's drop it.

Leslie.

James M Galvin wrote:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription
> manager: <http://lists.elistx.com/subscribe>

-- 

-------------------------------------------------------------------
"An essential element of a successful journey
    is recognizing when you have arrived."
   -- ThinkingCat

Leslie Daigle
[email-masked]
-------------------------------------------------------------------

---

From: "Joel M. Halpern" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 30 Mar 2002 13:17:40 -0500

My concern is that, as stated, it is probably almost impossible to ever 
agree that there is a problem, much less a clearly understood problem.

One of the consequences of confidentiality is that it is hard to see what 
went on.  We should not remove most of that confidentiality.  But it does 
make it very hard to observe a problem.  Therefore, we must deduce one from 
the results.  While I disagree with Marshall about whether there has been 
insufficient turnover, he is reasonably looking at an observable to try to 
see if there is an underlying problem.

For example, in discussing the degree of oversight the review bodies do or 
should have, we are speculating on a number of fronts, including what the 
real current interaction is, what the current perception of the review 
bodies as to their rights and authority are, and how effective or 
ineffective the current feedback mechanism is in provide a check on the 
nomcom choices.
I believe that the current review bodies see themselves as not having the 
practical ability to say no.  However, there is no way I can "prove" that.
Similarly, without insulting someone there is no way to make a case that 
review is needed, and most of us quite reasonably do not want to get into 
insulting anyone, or into discussing perceptions of people.  There is no 
way such a discussion can lead to anything useful, so we again see that 
agreeing on a clearly stated problem is going to be difficult, since the 
evidence must of necessity be indirect.

Yours,
Joel

---

From: Randy Bush <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 31 Mar 2002 21:25:51 +0200

> jim - i know i'm coming into this a day late and a dollar short

it's ONE WEEK after minneapolis.  a month from now would be more like
it if this wasn't a railroad job.  i guess we really don't intend folk
to have an opportunity to subscribe, read, think, ....  damned shame.

randy