Subject: Re: [removed] to Serve as RFC Editor Future Development Program Chair

From: S Moonesamy <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 01 Apr 2020 01:43:33 -0700

Hi Wes,
At 04:37 PM 31-03-2020, Wes Hardaker wrote:
>In general, I'm always happy to voice my personal opinions on matters.
>I can't, unfortunately, talk about things that I'm not supposed to
>(e.g. things received in confidence, which includes non-public email,
>conversations and, of course, executive sessions), or about things that
>I have no personal knowledge about.  What happened before my time on the
>board started, or what happens in RSOC, both of which fall into the
>above category I can't help with unfortunately.

I read a document about the Internet Architecture Board. If I 
understood the English correctly, it means that an IAB member doesn't 
have any duty towards any organization.  It is up to the person to 
decide whether he/she wishes to express an opinion as Person X or 
Person X, IAB member.  For what it is worth, I don't find it 
convincing when a person uses the former on this mailing list and the 
latter outside the IETF.

>[I'll note that all of the IAB's executive session discussion topics
>are on the published agendas, and in at least all the sessions I've
>participated in we've only discussed those topics and it's not used as a
>free-for-all discussion of anything, which is critical (IMHO).]

I would not ask you about "executive sessions" as I have some 
experience of how that type of session works.  There are different 
schools of thought about what should be minuted once a committee 
exits the session.  I'll ask you a difficult question; is an e-vote 
confidential?

On March 4, the IAB discussed an agenda item about "Program 
Chairs".  There isn't any information under that item (it's the 
latest minutes) which explains why the IAB decided to go with one 
Program Chair.  I asked Jari about that.  I don't know whether the 
lack of reply is because he is busy or because of an unwillingness to 
comment about that topic on an open mailing list.

>Over in the ICANN land, I've pushed heavily for open and transparent
>meetings for the last few years.  I'm firmly in your camp of "everything
>that can and should be open should be".  Unfortunately, when it comes to
>collecting and discussing private feedback for appointments, which is
>something the IAB spends a lot of meeting time doing (I've learned in
>the last year), that can't really be done as transparently and is one of
>the reasons the nomcom appointment process to the various bodies exists.

I don't follow what goes on in the Internet Corporation for Assigned 
Names and Numbers on a regular basis as I have other free work which 
takes a significant amount of my time.  I don't believe that it makes 
sense to push for some other organization to be open and not do the 
same thing in here.  I would give you credit for commenting on this 
mailing list.

Regards,
S. Moonesamy

---

From: Wes Hardaker <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 01 Apr 2020 15:58:31 -0700

S Moonesamy <[email-masked]> writes:

Hi Subramanian,

Answering the question you asked of me:

> schools of thought about what should be minuted once a committee exits
> I'll ask you a difficult question; is an e-vote confidential?

Different organizations I'm sure do things different.  Most voting
organizations I've sat on in the past have publicly recorded individual
votes for most items (except commonly minus voting for leadership
positions within the organizations).  The IAB's individual votes aren't
publicly recorded, though I don't personally know the history of why
that is the case.

-- 
Wes Hardaker
USC/ISI

---

From: S Moonesamy <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 01 Apr 2020 23:06:47 -0700

Hi Wes,
>publicly recorded, though I don't personally know the history of why

Thanks for the explanation.

Regards,
S. Moonesamy

---

From: Mirja Kuehlewind <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 2 Apr 2020 21:05:12 +0200

Hi Brian,

Thanks for sharing your concern. My concern or rather, maybe slightly pessimistic, expectation is that just rerunning the previous process immediately right now might not make it easier to pick a second chair or may even lead, in the worse case, to the same result again of not being able to select a second chair. My understanding of the decision made by the previous members of the IAB is that the main intention was to get things set up to the point where the actual work and discussion can start - meaning creating a program and having at least one person that manages it. Therefore I’m hoping that we can take at least a little more time to figure out the right process and timing without impacting the work negatively.

Mirja

> On 31. Mar 2020, at 22:26, Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> Mirja,
> 
> Thanks. I am a bit concerned that you say "months" not "weeks".
> 
> Regards
>   Brian
> 
> On 31-Mar-20 10:50, Mirja Kuehlewind wrote:
>> Hi Brian, hi Rich,
>> 
>> Thanks for your feedback. The IAB is planning to consider the appointment of a second chair in the coming months. At the moment we see it as most important to have a venue to develop proposals for discussion, and the IAB liaisons will logically support Elliot, if and whenever needed, to get the work started as soon as possible.
>> 
>> Best,
>> Mirja
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On 28.03.20, 02:21, "ietf on behalf of Salz, Rich" <[email-masked] on behalf of rsalz=[email-masked]> wrote:
>> 
>>>   It was however explicit in the preceding discussions *and* in the IAB's call for nominations:
>> 
>>>   https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/RSM0PyZ0CERQswyZ3CakuH8BT0k/
>> 
>>    Yeah, seems like something (someone?) slipped through the cracks here.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
> 
>