Eliot convened the meeting and presented the Note Well slide. We then moved on to the Agenda.
Admin Continuing on with Adrian’s Proposal Joel Presentation New Editor Next Meeting AOB
There was mild agenda bashing. Please note that the program github link has moved.
Eliot first reviewed what we largely agreed in the last meeting (see Minutes from that meeting).
Joel Halpern next presented a proposal, the slides of which are posted in the materials for this meeting. The key elements of his proposal were as follows:
There was general agreement to this process, with several very notable exceptions:
There was a very healthy discussion about the first point. The group of people who believe the RS[EA] should not sit on the board, had a few reasons: first, it is important for people who sit on the AB to have a constituency to whom they are accountable, and it was not made clear to them who the RS[EA] would be accountable. In addition, the view was expressed that an outsider should not have a seat on this body because of lack of experience with the community.
Another group of people believe that it is important that the RS[EA] have a seat on the approval body for three reasons: first, because the broader community needs to be represented. Second, people believed that we would have great difficulty finding someone who would take the job without having a seat. Finally, the concern was raised that because the paid professional is indeed an outsider, her/his voice might get lost in the WG.
This discussion developed for some time, and a great many points of view were shared. One approach Joel offered somewhat reluctantly was to increase the number of concerns required to three to sustain them.
With no clear consensus having developed, the chairs polled the room on the question:
Hands raised: 15 Hands not raised: 8
Hands raised: 9 Hands not raised: 13
Neither chair saw a strong consensus from which to proceed. At best one could say that consensus was extremely rough.
Eliot then asked the question: for those who would prefer not to see the RS[EA] on the board, what would ameliorate your concerns? There are two main answers:
Eliot then asked the other group what would accommodate their concerns to move forward with an AB without the RS[EA], and there was no response.
Eliot noted that we needed to resolve this matter in order to move forward. To break the impasse, we will build some text around Joel's proposal, as follows:
There will then be some time for discussion, and after that, a consensus call. The chairs urged both groups to consider how to accommodate the other.
Eliot then asked for objections to this approach, and there were none.
Mirja asked about timelines. Eliot responded that the intent is to have the consensus call completed in time for the April meeting. She pointed out that John's contract is set to expire, and that some decisions would have to be made around that.
Mike raised the concern that nearly all of the AB are appointed by the IAB, and so it might be good to have several members who are directly appointed by a NOMCOM.
This raised some issues. One concern was that it would be difficult to find people. A second point made was that the AB stands for "Approval Body" and that the open WG should handle most of the heavy lifting. The AB should only raise concerns as a true last resort. One comment was that we do not want to recreate the problems that occurred with the RSOC.
This was briefly discussed, and the chairs asked if people saw an interlocking between this issue and the previous. There were no answers. More discussion expected on list.
As mentioned on list, Peter Saint-Andre has offered to be our document editor. We hope to have a first draft in time for the April meeting. Please join the chairs in thanking Peter for his help. The chairs also thank the other volunteers (you know who you are).
The next meeting will take place on April 6 at 8:00pm GMT.
Many thanks to Joel Halpern for his presentation, and to Dominique Lazanski who took copius notes.