Subject: [Rfced-future] Issue 151: Consultation / Approval for RSCE Selection committee

From: Eliot Lear <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 8 Jan 2022 09:44:01 +0100

Hi,

I've opened a separate issue on the discussion that John Klensin 
initiated regarding how the selection committee has formed.  At this 
time, I would like to ask if others believe that there is a concern.  If 
not, we will not make any changes.

To review, John has proposed that the RSAB be consulted once the ED has 
a proposed search committee.  I suggested that the consultation could 
occur earlier.  Jay pointed out that any such change would delay hiring 
of the RSCE and didn't think the change was necessary, as he is 
consulting this group.

One way forward might be that we put together a proposal in the RSWG to 
address this point, so that we can get on with the hiring.  That would 
of course require rough consensus and approval.

Another way forward might be that the text doesn't become operative 
until after the RSWG and RSAB are formed.

There may be other ways forward.  Please indicate your preference.

Eliot

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 9 Jan 2022 09:44:33 +1300

> a proposed search committee

How about specifying that (for the initial RSCE) the four existing stream
managers should be consulted? That avoids waiting for formal RSAB creation
but has the same effect. For any future RSCE searches, the RSAB will be
available for consultation.

Regards
    Brian

---

From: Michael StJohns <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 9 Jan 2022 20:23:01 -0500

On 1/8/2022 3:44 AM, Eliot Lear wrote:
> time, I would like to ask if others believe that there is a concern.  
> If not, we will not make any changes.
>
> To review, John has proposed that the RSAB be consulted once the ED 
> has a proposed search committee.  I suggested that the consultation 
> could occur earlier.  Jay pointed out that any such change would delay 
> hiring of the RSCE and didn't think the change was necessary, as he is 
> consulting this group.
>
> One way forward might be that we put together a proposal in the RSWG 
> to address this point, so that we can get on with the hiring.  That 
> would of course require rough consensus and approval.
>
I'd like to resolve this in favor of having the RSAB (or initially the 
stream managers as I think Brian suggested) having the option to chime 
in with the LLC formation of the selection committee.  Doing so covers 
the case where we end up with the possibility of a volunteer RSCE where 
there isn't a lot for the LLC to do on the back end (e.g., 
contracting).  Long term we've told the LLC to focus on the business 
aspects of the IETF, and having at least the possibility of non-LLC 
input into the pre-selection process seems to me to make some sense 
regardless of whether the RSCE is hired or a volunteer.

I don't think this needs to be any more formal than an hour long chat 
between the RSAB and the ED/LLC Board on the ED's general approach to 
the process.  And then letting that go forward.  E.g. less specificity 
is a plus.

Later, Mike

---

From: Russ Housley <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2022 14:59:09 -0500

I agree with the suggest that Brian made about consulting with the four stream managers.  It does not need to be a prolonged consultation.

Russ

> On Jan 8, 2022, at 3:44 AM, Eliot Lear <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> 
> I've opened a separate issue on the discussion that John Klensin initiated regarding how the selection committee has formed.  At this time, I would like to ask if others believe that there is a concern.  If not, we will not make any changes.
> 
> To review, John has proposed that the RSAB be consulted once the ED has a proposed search committee.  I suggested that the consultation could occur earlier.  Jay pointed out that any such change would delay hiring of the RSCE and didn't think the change was necessary, as he is consulting this group.
> 
> One way forward might be that we put together a proposal in the RSWG to address this point, so that we can get on with the hiring.  That would of course require rough consensus and approval.
> 
> Another way forward might be that the text doesn't become operative until after the RSWG and RSAB are formed.
>

---

From: Eliot Lear <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2022 21:23:25 +0100

I'm beginning to see a rough consensus here.  Are there other views?

Eliot

---

From: Eric Rescorla <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2022 12:26:42 -0800

This seems fine to me.

-Ekr

On Mon, Jan 10, 2022 at 12:23 PM Eliot Lear <[email-masked]> wrote:

> > I agree with the suggest that Brian made about consulting with the four
> stream managers.  It does not need to be a prolonged consultation.
> >
> > Russ
> >
> initiated regarding how the selection committee has formed.  At this time,
> I would like to ask if others believe that there is a concern.  If not, we
> will not make any changes.
> >>
> a proposed search committee.  I suggested that the consultation could occur
> earlier.  Jay pointed out that any such change would delay hiring of the
> RSCE and didn't think the change was necessary, as he is consulting this
> group.
> >>
> address this point, so that we can get on with the hiring.  That would of
> course require rough consensus and approval.
> >>
> --
> Rfced-future mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.iab.org/mailman/listinfo/rfced-future
>

---

From: Peter Saint-Andre <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2022 18:36:08 -0700

+1

On 1/10/22 1:26 PM, Eric Rescorla wrote:
> This seems fine to me.
> 
> -Ekr
> 
> 
> On Mon, Jan 10, 2022 at 12:23 PM Eliot Lear <[email-masked] 
> <mailto:[email-masked]>> wrote:
> 
>      > I agree with the suggest that Brian made about consulting with
>     the four stream managers.  It does not need to be a prolonged
>     consultation.
>      >
>      > Russ
>      >
>      >> On Jan 8, 2022, at 3:44 AM, Eliot Lear <[email-masked]
>     <mailto:[email-masked]>> wrote:
>      >>
>      >> Hi,
>      >>
>     time, I would like to ask if others believe that there is a
>     concern.  If not, we will not make any changes.
>      >>
>      >> To review, John has proposed that the RSAB be consulted once the
>     ED has a proposed search committee.  I suggested that the
>     consultation could occur earlier.  Jay pointed out that any such
>     change would delay hiring of the RSCE and didn't think the change
>     was necessary, as he is consulting this group.
>      >>
>      >> One way forward might be that we put together a proposal in the
>     RSWG to address this point, so that we can get on with the hiring. 
>     That would of course require rough consensus and approval.
>      >>
>      >> Another way forward might be that the text doesn't become
>     operative until after the RSWG and RSAB are formed.
>      >>
>     [email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]>
>     <https://www.iab.org/mailman/listinfo/rfced-future>
> 
>

---

From: Peter Saint-Andre <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2022 18:46:52 -0700

Proposed text for Section 5.1...

OLD

    The IETF LLC will form a selection committee, including members from
    the community, that will be responsible for making a recommendation
    to the IETF LLC for the RSCE role.  The selection committee will take
    into account the definition of the role as well as any other
    information that the committee deems necessary or helpful in making
    its decision.  The IETF LLC is responsible for contracting or
    employment of the RSCE.

NEW

    Responsibility for making a recommendation to the IETF LLC regarding
    the RSCE role will lie with a selection committee.  The IETF LLC will
    propose an initial slate of members for this committee, making sure
    to include members from the community, and consult with the stream
    representatives regarding the final membership of the committee.  In
    making its recommendation for the role of RSCE, the selection
    committee will take into account the definition of the role as well
    as any other information that the committee deems necessary or
    helpful in making its decision.  The IETF LLC is responsible for
    contracting or employment of the RSCE.

On 1/10/22 6:36 PM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
>>      > I agree with the suggest that Brian made about consulting with
>>      >
>>      > Russ
>>      >
>>      >> On Jan 8, 2022, at 3:44 AM, Eliot Lear <[email-masked]
>>      >>
>>      >> Hi,
>>      >>
>>      >> I've opened a separate issue on the discussion that John Klensin
>>      >>
>>      >> To review, John has proposed that the RSAB be consulted once the
>>      >>
>>      >> One way forward might be that we put together a proposal in the
>>      >>
>>      >> Another way forward might be that the text doesn't become
>>      >>
>>      >> There may be other ways forward.  Please indicate your 
>> preference.
>>      >>
>>      >> Eliot
>>      >>
>>      >>
>>      >>
>>      >
>>     --     Rfced-future mailing list

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2022 15:29:22 +1300

wfm, but I'd like to hear Jay's opinion.

Regards
    Brian

---

From: Eliot Lear <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2022 07:13:25 +0100

Peter,

I think your text captures the issue, modulo two points:

>    The IETF LLC will
>    representatives regarding the final membership of the committee.

I think that "will" must become a "should" or "is requested to", because 
we do not dictate to the LLC in this document and we shouldn't start here.

Also, if your intent was to capture John's point about having a 
diversity of perspectives on the committee, I don't think you quite got 
there.  You could change that line to something like:

> including people with {diverse/different} perspectives,

To answer an earlier point from Eric about whether that parameter can be 
tested, then, the RSAB can then ask the question, “How do these people 
hold diverse perspectives?” and provide feedback on the answer.

Eliot

---

From: Lars Eggert <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2022 09:18:04 +0200

> wfm, but I'd like to hear Jay's opinion.

Jay is on vacation until Jan 25, so expect a delay.

Thanks,
Lars

---

From: Peter Saint-Andre <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2022 17:32:19 -0700

> we do not dictate to the LLC in this document and we shouldn't start here.

Ack.

> diversity of perspectives on the committee, 

I missed that point in the many threads.

> I don't think you quite got 

WFM.

Peter