Subject: AdminRest: IASA BCP: Should IAB chair be a voting member of IAOC

From: "Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 13 Nov 2004 16:53:17 +0100

Margarets draft-wasserman-iasa-bcp-01.txt states (bottom of page 7):

    There will also be two non-voting, ex officio liaisons:

    o  The IAB Chair

    o  The IETF Administrative Director

    [Note: There is some question about whether the IAB Chair should be a
    liaison or a full member of the IAOC.  There are multiple trade-offs
    here, and this should be discussed by the community.]

During the Plenary last wednesday there were suggestions/proposals to
make IAB chair a voting member. 

I personally think that that makes sense.
But I am just one of the co-editors. 
So pls let us know what you as IETF community participants think.

Bert

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

---

From: Erik Huizer <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 13 Nov 2004 17:22:38 +0100

My sense is that an IAB chair is probably very well informed and will have 
very good insight into all the issues surrounding the IASA. Therefore it 
makes sense to give the IAB chair a vote.

Erik

---

From: [email-masked] (scott bradner)
Date: Sat, 13 Nov 2004 11:44:55 -0500 (EST)

> I personally think that that makes sense.

I agree that the idea makes sense

but I think that most of the IAOC should mostly work by consensus - I
expect that any issue that only garnered a bare majority of the IAOC 
would wind up badly - I expect there would be times when formal voting
would be needed but I don't think that voting should be the normal
operating mode.

Scott

---

From: Michael Richardson <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 13 Nov 2004 16:31:01 -0500

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

If the IAB chair and IETF chair (who is also the IESG chair) are
both members IASA (whether voting or not), I am wondering about the
people appointed by the IESG and IAB.

Why do it this way?  Why not just have nomcom fill all slots?

Section 3 could explain more there.

]       ON HUMILITY: to err is human. To moo, bovine.           |  firewalls  [
]   Michael Richardson,    Xelerance Corporation, Ottawa, ON    |net architect[
] [email-masked]      http://www.sandelman.ottawa.on.ca/mcr/ |device driver[
] panic("Just another Debian GNU/Linux using, kernel hacking, security guy"); [

---

From: Sam Hartman <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 13 Nov 2004 22:57:59 -0500

>>>>> "Erik" == Erik Huizer <[email-masked]> writes:

    Erik> My sense is that an IAB chair is probably very well informed
    Erik> and will have very good insight into all the issues
    Erik> surrounding the IASA. Therefore it makes sense to give the
    Erik> IAB chair a vote.

The reason it would not make sense to do so seems to be (as I
understand it) that doing so might allow the IAB chair to focus less
energy on the IASA and more on Internet architecture.

In my mind the question boils down to are IAB chairs likely to want a
vote?  IF so, we should give it to them.

---

From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 13 Nov 2004 15:47:04 -0500

I too think the IAB Chair should vote. But that raises an issue...

While I agree that consensus should be the normal operation mode, I think 
this body can't live with "let's wait until later and hope we know more 
then" as the normal means of resolving close-call conflicts. The budget 
proposals MUST come out of the IAOC at specific times; this is about 
salaries, not about standards.

If we make no other changes, we have 8 voting members. This means that it 
could end up 4 against 4 on an issue.
I suggest that the IAOC chair gets the power to decide a tie.

                  Harald

---

From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 14 Nov 2004 01:10:52 -0500

> Section 3 could explain more there.

The logic that led to this was that today, IESG and IAB deal more closely 
with the support functions (IAB's charter includes overseeing the technical 
work of the RFC editor; the IESG is a major consumer of secretariat support 
resources), and that they would have a greater insight in the requirements 
for overseeing the IAD role than the average Nomcom volunteer.

The IETF and IAB chairs were added to give direct, continuous contact, 
while the IESG & IAB appointed members (who would typically NOT be members 
of IESG and IAB) were added to give the IESG and IAB the opportunity to 
name members they thought well-qualified.

The argument for having Nomcom-selected members at all is (I think) that 
having *all* the members selected via two levels of indirection from the 
community (first nomcom then IESG + IAB) seems "not optimal".

              Harald

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 14 Nov 2004 15:52:03 +0100

Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
> While I agree that consensus should be the normal operation mode, I 
> think this body can't live with "let's wait until later and hope we know 
> more then" as the normal means of resolving close-call conflicts. The 
> budget proposals MUST come out of the IAOC at specific times; this is 
> about salaries, not about standards.
> 
> If we make no other changes, we have 8 voting members. This means that 
> it could end up 4 against 4 on an issue.

I agree. (I was the person who raised this topic in the plenary).

In reponse to Sam Hartman's point - I don't think having a vote will
change the amount of time the IAB Chair has to put into this. And as
I recall from my time in the IAB, the distractions from doing architecture
came mainly from external sources, not from IETF administration.

     Brian

---

From: Geoff Huston <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 15 Nov 2004 18:30:01 +1100

>make IAB chair a voting member.

That makes a lot of sense to me

    Geoff Huston

---

From: "Steve Silverman" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 15 Nov 2004 12:42:33 -0500

It would seem to me that being a non-voting member is being a second
class member
of the group.  Given the relative lack of importance to voting in the
IETF, it is not
obvious to me that any person who is expected to participate in
discussions should be excluded.
In particular, one (at least I) would not expect the IAB chair to be
particularly irresponsible.
Can anyone explain why certain positions are non-voting?

Steve Silverman

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked]
> [mailto:[email-masked]]On
> Behalf Of Geoff
> Huston
> Sent: Monday, November 15, 2004 2:30 AM
> To: Wijnen, Bert (Bert); [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: AdminRest: IASA BCP: Should IAB chair be a
> voting member of
> IAOC
>
>
> This message was passed through
> [email-masked], which is a sublist of
> [email-masked]. Not all messages are passed. Decisions on
> what to pass are made solely by IETF_CENSORED ML
> Administrator ([email-masked]).
>