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

From: Barry Leiba <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 24 Feb 2016 10:56:18 -0800

The main substantive changes are the fourth board appointment and this
paragraph:

   If ISOC further modifies [ISOC-By-Laws] concerning the number of IAB
   appointments to the ISOC Board or the timing thereof, the IAB will
   make reasonable modifications to the processes embodied in this
   document, without requiring further modification to this document.
   Such changes will be announced via an IAB statement.

While this is certainly expedient, it's quite open-ended, entirely
left up to the judgment of the sitting IAB about what "reasonable
modifications" might mean.  Certainly, with a by-law change that adds
a board appointment, most anyone would consider it reasonable to just
add that appointment with the appropriate periodicity, and it's
reasonable not to have to rev this document for that.

But 3677bis is now basically saying that BCP 77 is now obsolete, that
this version is the last one and is indeed documenting current
practice, and that future changes will be made by IAB decision and not
by revision of BCP 77.

Is that the intent?  If so, maybe it would be better now to simply
make BCP 77 obsolete and shift the whole thing into an IAB statement
at this point.

Barry

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 25 Feb 2016 08:06:33 +1300

> reasonable not to have to rev this document for that.

Yes, but I think this needs to be circumscribed. Wouldn't it be better
to require that BCP 77 is appropriately updated within 12 months in
such a case, i.e. trust the IAB to do the right thing but also commit
to updating the rules accordingly?

    Brian

---

From: "Joe Hildebrand (jhildebr)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 24 Feb 2016 22:29:09 +0000

>to updating the rules accordingly?

I guess I'm ok with that. We could also trust the IAB to know the difference between a substantive change and a minor one.

Anyway, please propose text.

-- 
Joe Hildebrand

---

From: Barry Leiba <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 24 Feb 2016 14:37:47 -0800

Barry said...
>>> reasonable not to have to rev this document for that.

Brian said...
>>to updating the rules accordingly?

Joe said...
> I guess I'm ok with that. We could also trust the IAB to know the
> difference between a substantive change and a minor one.

Actually, I'm fine with trusting the IAB here, as it's limited to
appointments that it is given the power to make; I just want to make
absolutely sure that the community knows what it's agreeing to.
That's why I'd rather simply shift this to an IAB statement now, and
make it clear that BCP 77 as a whole is now obsolete, and that the
process that BCP 77 formerly described is now described in the IAB
statement.

[To keep this in perspective, I'm not going to hold out on this point;
it's a suggestion -- one that I think makes it fully clear what's
being changed in how we document this process.]

Barry

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 25 Feb 2016 15:59:55 +1300

>> difference between a substantive change and a minor one.

Absolutely. I don't distrust the IAB at all, but if we're going to
have a BCP at all, it needs to be done right.

> being changed in how we document this process.]

I feel that it has to remain a BCP, because these are IETF seats
on the BoT, and the IETF chose to delegate the job of filling
them to the IAB. So the minimal BCP would be one that says
just that: "The IETF delegates the selection process to the IAB."

Before drafting text as Joe requested, I'll wait to see if
the minimalist version attracts interest.

   Brian

---

From: "Bradner, Scott" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 25 Feb 2016 12:27:11 +0000

re section 3.5 mid-term vacancies

please hold off on this particular section for a bit - I am in the middle of proposing some changes 
to the ISOC bylaws - mostly to clear up some confusions - and one of these changes concerns IETF vacancy appointments

the current bylaws do not limit when the IETF can appoint someone to fill a vacancy but do limit when such an
appointment can take office to the start of the ISOC mid year meeting, when all new trustees take office - which might
be a bit frustrating to the appointee

I am proposing a bylaws update that will put the IETF appointment t fill a vacancy to be the same
as it is for the chapters & org members - with until the next appointment cycle (to do otherwise
provided unequal treatment for the IETF)

in any case some change is needed to clarify the existing situation

Scott

> On Feb 24, 2016, at 12:59 PM, IAB Executive Administrative Manager <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> This is an announcement of an IETF-wide Call for Comment on
> draft-iab-rfc3677bis-00.
> 
> The document is being considered for publication as a Best Current 
> Practice RFC within the IAB stream, and is available for inspection 
> here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-iab-rfc3677bis/
> 
> The Call for Comment will last until 2016-03-23. Please send comments to
> [email-masked] and [email-masked].
> 
> 
> Abstract
> 
>   This memo, which obsoletes RFC3677, outlines the process by which the
>   IETF makes a selection of an Internet Society (ISOC) Board of
>   Trustees appointment.
>

---

From: Bob Hinden <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 25 Feb 2016 15:35:06 -0800

Brian,

> the minimalist version attracts interest.

I think it should remain an RFC in the current style.  I think it’s an important element for ISOC and think it is useful to be documented in an RFC.

Further, the ISOC By-laws don’t change very often, from a practical point of view we don’t need to be concerned this document will need to be updated very often.  The last ISOC by-laws change that this update is dealing with took several years to go from conception to adoption

Bob

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 28 Feb 2016 08:49:38 +1300

Bob,

I agree with you. I didn't actually advocate the minimalist version;
I just wanted to point out that we need a BCP in any case.

So, I suggest something like this:

OLD:

NEW:
   If ISOC further modifies [ISOC-By-Laws] concerning the number of IETF
   appointments to the ISOC Board or the timing thereof, the IAB may
   make corresponding modifications to the frequency and the timing of
   the processes embodied in this document, pending any modification to
   this document. Such changes will be announced via an IAB statement.

     Brian

---

From: Barry Leiba <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 27 Feb 2016 12:35:49 -0800

>    this document. Such changes will be announced via an IAB statement.

I think a change such as that would be good.

Barry

---

From: Bob Hinden <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 28 Feb 2016 08:11:44 -0800

> On Feb 27, 2016, at 12:39 PM, John C Klensin <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> --On Saturday, February 27, 2016 12:35 -0800 Barry Leiba
> <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
>>> NEW:
>>>   If ISOC further modifies [ISOC-By-Laws] concerning the
>>>   number of IETF appointments to the ISOC Board or the
>>>   timing thereof, the IAB may make corresponding
>>>   modifications to the frequency and the timing of the
>>>   processes embodied in this document, pending any
>>>   modification to this document. Such changes will be
>>>   announced via an IAB statement.
>> 
> I agree but, if the intent is that the IAB modifications and
> statement are a stopgap, to avoid discontinuities, etc., but
> that the IAB is still expected to move expeditiously to get the
> BCP updated, that could be said a lot more clearly.

I agree.  The IAB shouldn’t delay it’s board appointment until this document is updated, but it should do an update in a reasonable amount of time.

Thanks,
Bob

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 29 Feb 2016 07:48:57 +1300

Well, OK.

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

Regards
   Brian

---

From: Bob Hinden <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 29 Feb 2016 07:39:15 -0800

Brian,

> On Feb 28, 2016, at 10:48 AM, Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> Well, OK.
> 
> NEW NEW:

Fine for me.

Bob

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 27 Feb 2016 15:39:49 -0500

john

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 28 Feb 2016 14:52:51 -0500

>   propose a corresponding update to this document within

Much improved.  FWIW, I'd prefer "should" in the last sentence
to "must".  While I think they are unlikely, one can imagine
circumstances that would prevent them from doing so as well as
debates over what "propose" means.  If they fail to do so, the
community presumably has ways to hold the IAB accountable that
avoid the constitutional crisis around this particular issue
implied by "must".  I also think "one year" is too long as a
target. Perhaps "The IAB must then initiate work on a
corresponding update to this document with the expectation that
a proposal will be completed in under a year." or words to that
effect.

thanks,
    john