Subject: Re: [Iasa20] Last Call: <draft-ietf-iasa2-trust-update-00.txt> (Update to the Selection of Trustees for the IETF Trust) to Best Current Practice

From: "John Levine" <[email-masked]>
Date: 21 Sep 2018 18:57:50 -0400

In article <[email-masked]> you write:
>The IESG has received a request from the IETF Administrative Support Activity
>2 WG (iasa2) to consider the following document: - 'Update to the Selection
>of Trustees for the IETF Trust'
>  <draft-ietf-iasa2-trust-update-00.txt> as Best Current Practice

This is ready to go.  Separating oversight of the trust from the
business management of the IETF would be a good idea even if the
demise of the IAOC didn't force us to do it.

I believe that the trustees (of whom I am one) are agreeable.

Regards,
John Levine, [email-masked], Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies",
Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. https://jl.ly

---

From: Bob Hinden <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2018 18:22:26 -0700

> On Sep 21, 2018, at 3:57 PM, John Levine <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 

I concur.  It made sense to have the Trustees be members of the IAOC when the IETF Trust was first created, but now with the creation of the IASA 2.0 model, what is proposed here is the right thing to do.

Bob

---

From: "Adrian Farrel" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 22 Sep 2018 20:58:49 +0100

Thanks for this small document that clearly states how Trustees are
appointed and is an important cog.

Just a couple of comments, and some nits.

Best,
Adrian

===

Not sure whether this is just a matter of variations of language over
the Atlantic, but "update to the selection" means (to me) changing the
people who have been selected. So, better to say "update to the process
for selection."

Thus...

Title
OLD
         Update to the Selection of Trustees for the IETF Trust
NEW
   Update to the Process for Selection of Trustees for the IETF Trust

Abstract
OLD
   This memo updates the selection of trustees for the IETF Trust.
NEW
   This memo updates the process for selection of trustees for the IETF
   Trust.

Introduction
OLD
   This memo updates the selection of trustees for the IETF Trust.
NEW
   This memo updates the process for selection of trustees for the IETF 
   Trust.

---

Section 2

   IETF rules regarding recalls and other NomCom-related processes
   continue to apply [RFC7437].

Pedantic, but you can't quite get away with this because the NomCom
processes in 7437 did not apply to pure IETF Trust appointments.

How about...

   The processes regarding NomCom appointments and recalls of Trustees
   for the IETF Trust follow those described in [RFC7437].

Does this mean this document updates 7437?

=== Nits

Abstract and Introduction

s/trustees but/trustees, but/

> The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits final
> comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
> [email-masked] mailing lists by 2018-10-05. Exceptionally, comments may be
> sent to [email-masked] instead. In either case, please retain the beginning of
> the Subject line to allow automated sorting.

---

From: S Moonesamy <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2018 10:40:50 -0700

Hi Jari, Ted,
>comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the

It took me some to understand out what this memo updates as the draft 
does not reference the sections of the previous RFCs which are being 
updated.  I suggest clarifying that in the draft.

Shouldn't draft-ietf-iasa2-trust-rationale-00 be a normative reference?

The draft states that IETF rules regarding recalls will be applicable 
for this new selection process.  I gather that the authors of this 
draft are aware that a significant  [1] number of IETF participants 
who participate remotely.  A person within that group is 
systematically disqualified from participating in a recall 
petition.  I unfortunately have to raise an objection to the 
inclusion of the last paragraph in Section 2.

Regards,
S. Moonesamy

1. The number of registered remote participants for IETF 102 was 547.

---

From: Ted Hardie <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2018 14:08:57 -0700

Howdy,

On Mon, Sep 24, 2018 at 10:40 AM, S Moonesamy <[email-masked]> wrote:

> It took me some to understand out what this memo updates as the draft does
> not reference the sections of the previous RFCs which are being updated.  I
> suggest clarifying that in the draft.
>
> Thanks for the review.  The issue here is that RFC 4071 and RFC 4371 will
be obsolete at the end of the IASA 2.0 process, and the aim is to make the
process listed here complete without needing to read the previous
iterations of BCP 101.   If the document didn't reference the previous
document at all, do you think it is clear how the Trustees are selected?

> I don't think so, as it is the "why", where this document is intended to
be narrowly scoped to how.  An informative reference makes sense, and it
has already been suggested.

> The draft states that IETF rules regarding recalls will be applicable for
> this new selection process.  I gather that the authors of this draft are
> aware that a significant  [1] number of IETF participants who participate
> remotely.  A person within that group is systematically disqualified from
> participating in a recall petition.  I unfortunately have to raise an
> objection to the inclusion of the last paragraph in Section 2.
>
> This document doesn't update BCP 10, so I believe your change has to be
directed there, not at this document.

regards,

Ted

---

From: S Moonesamy <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2018 21:59:39 -0700

Hi Ted,
At 02:08 PM 24-09-2018, Ted Hardie wrote:
>Thanks for the review.  The issue here is that RFC 4071 and RFC 4371 
>will be obsolete at the end of the IASA 2.0 process, and the aim is 
>to make the process listed here complete without needing to read the 
>previous iterations of BCP 101.   If the document didn't reference 
>the previous document at all, do you think it is clear how the 
>Trustees are selected?

Thanks for the prompt reply.  One of the points which I missed in my 
previous comment was that the draft obsoletes RFC 4371.  The draft 
updates instead of obsoleting RFC 4071 by removing a sentence which 
RFC 4371 added to Section 3.2 of RFC 4071.

The appointments as specified in Section 2 are clear.

>I don't think so, as it is the "why", where this document is 
>intended to be narrowly scoped to how.  An informative reference 
>makes sense, and it has already been suggested.

It might be useful to publish the "why" if the RFCs are viewed as 
part of an archival series.

>This document doesn't update BCP 10, so I believe your change has to 
>be directed there, not at this document.

The WG charter states that existing IETF and IAB appointments are out 
of scope.  As the draft specifies new appointments, I presume that 
matters related to appointments are included as part of this Last 
Call.  The IETF rules regarding recalls are specified in this draft 
by reference.  Is it fair that IETF rules with respect to the recall 
of IETF Trustees be unavailable to roughly one third of the 
IETF?  That is the question which the IESG may have to give some thought to.

As a comment about BCP 10, a side effect of removing
the re
quirement that trustees be drawn from the members of the IAOC is that 
BCP 10 would no longer be applicable given that the document does not 
say anything about IETF trustees.  That also removes an ineligibility 
requirement which is currently applicable to an IETF trustee given 
that the that "IETF rules" are ambiguous.

Regards,
S. Moonesamy

---

From: Ted Hardie <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2018 08:10:42 -0700

Howdy,

On Mon, Sep 24, 2018 at 9:59 PM, S Moonesamy <[email-masked]> wrote:

> It might be useful to publish the "why" if the RFCs are viewed as part of
> an archival series.
>
>
Several other folks have agreed on this point, and I believe the current
theory is to publish the rationale document as informational.  There are
some small text changes which need to be make that happen.

> The WG charter states that existing IETF and IAB appointments are out of
> scope.  As the draft specifies new appointments, I presume that matters
> related to appointments are included as part of this Last Call.  The IETF
> rules regarding recalls are specified in this draft by reference.  Is it
> fair that IETF rules with respect to the recall of IETF Trustees be
> unavailable to roughly one third of the IETF?  That is the question which
> the IESG may have to give some thought to.
>
> quirement that trustees be drawn from the members of the IAOC is that BCP
> 10 would no longer be applicable given that the document does not say
> anything about IETF trustees.  That also removes an ineligibility
> requirement which is currently applicable to an IETF trustee given that the
> that "IETF rules" are ambiguous.
>
>
BCP 10 is about the "Operation of the Nominating and Recall Committees", as
its sub-heading notes.  This document adds a new set of tasks to the NomCom
(the direct selection of three of the Trustees) as an update to the former
indirect selection, but it doesn't update the operation of the NomCom or
Recall committees.  I personally believe that's the right way to do this
and that any update in the operation of the committees should be in a
separate document.  You are correct, of course, that the IESG will have to
judge both the community consensus and impact of this choice.

regards,

Ted Hardie