[11:05:12] Alexey Melnikov joins the room
[14:10:26] Alexey Melnikov leaves the room
[16:50:33] Alexey Melnikov joins the room
[22:54:46] Eliot Lear joins the room
[22:55:41] JcK joins the room
[23:01:08] Cindy Morgan joins the room
[23:04:08] <JcK> Sadly, Brian, your getting off ended the meeting and kicked (I think) the rest of us off (definitely me)
[23:04:08] Alexey Melnikov leaves the room
[23:05:10] <Cindy Morgan> I reclaimed the host role, so if you got kicked you should be able to rejoin
[23:13:52] Jay Daley joins the room
[23:13:54] jmh joins the room
[23:13:59] sginoza joins the room
[23:14:09] Wes Hardaker joins the room
[23:14:10] Greg Wood (IETF LLC) joins the room
[23:15:24] Brian Carpenter joins the room
[23:15:27] kaduk@jabber.org/barnowl joins the room
[23:15:35] ekr@jabber.org joins the room
[23:18:14] Bob Hinden joins the room
[23:19:42] Brian Rosen joins the room
[23:20:03] adam joins the room
[23:24:09] Martin Thomson joins the room
[23:24:49] Mark Nottingham joins the room
[23:25:11] <Martin Thomson> I agree with Brian regarding editorial authority, open process, LLC responsibility, we only disagree to the extent that the advisor is a permanent position
[23:26:35] <Martin Thomson> The seating of a group under IAB vs ISOC is another important difference, but I think that is less critical
[23:27:32] <Mark Nottingham> "Authority" is an interesting word, in light of all of the discussion of leadership recently.
[23:28:27] <adam> I'm having a hard time rectifying the "matrix management" comment with the notion of an "advisor." I'm used to "advisors" providing input to a process, like of like external legal counsel. Do we have a similar concern about matrix management of Brad?
[23:29:38] kaduk@jabber.org/barnowl leaves the room
[23:30:49] <Martin Thomson> adam: I think that the idea is that advisors won't suffer from this matrix management malaise we observed
[23:31:12] <Martin Thomson> That is, appointing this as an advisor avoids the issue.
[23:31:44] <adam> Martin: Right! That's what I got from your draft. I'm referring to Brian's comment about matrix management of the advisor in his model. But I don't understand how that would -- or even could -- be an issue with an external advisor.
[23:32:00] <ekr@jabber.org> Mark == Martin?
[23:32:22] <adam> Those Australians all sound the same.
[23:32:26] kaduk@jabber.org/barnowl joins the room
[23:32:31] <ekr@jabber.org> You said it,cobber
[23:32:52] <Martin Thomson> I took Brian's comment as saying that appointing a person as advisor was deliberately designed to avoid creating matrix management woes
[23:33:10] <adam> Oh! Okay, good. Then I think we're on the same page.
[23:34:26] <ekr@jabber.org> Is everyone else finding Mike a lot louder than anyone else?
[23:34:49] <adam> He's much louder here, and definitely blowing out the top end of his mic's dynamic range.
[23:34:57] <Brian Carpenter> Yes. I think that Heather was in that matrix management bind all along, and the LLC made it worse (no fault of hers or Jay's).
[23:35:18] <ekr@jabber.org> well blowing out my earphones
[23:35:54] <Brian Carpenter> I must have AVC, it's not so bad but he is saturating
[23:37:17] <Jay Daley> @Brian.  It would be useful to understand where the LLC went wrong (I only overlapped with Heather for 8 weeks and I don't think Portia had any engagement with her except for some basic contract stuff.)
[23:40:37] <Brian Carpenter> The LLC was known to be coming for a long time. I think it must have influenced the inner wrkings of the RSOC. Anyway she clearly didn't have clear authority yet she was xpected to report on RPC performance. So the matrix mgt problem was there all along.
[23:45:00] <ekr@jabber.org> My understanding is that this situation existed with IASA1
[23:45:45] <Martin Thomson> Bob Hinden:  a small difference in that nomcom appointed RSEB members would be required to participate, but it's very minor
[23:45:46] <JcK> @ekr: Largely, yes.
[23:47:08] kaduk@jabber.org/barnowl leaves the room
[23:47:27] kaduk@jabber.org/barnowl joins the room
[23:47:40] <JcK> It _might_ have gotten a little worse with the LLC because that change in structure _might_ have increased the tendency to think of the RSE as "just another commody contractor". I have no idea wether "commody" there originated in a LLC context or was an RSOC problem
[23:48:10] <Martin Thomson> I am going to reject the assumption in Mike's argument here: he suggests that there is a need to make forward progress.  That needs to be established.  This goes to the question of how to split between tactical (and therefore possibly urgent) and strategic.
[23:48:13] <kaduk@jabber.org/barnowl> What the desired behavior is in the tail-risk case where a "WG"
deadlocks and has no consensus is perhaps an interesting question,
which is maybe not exactly what Mike is getting at
[23:48:16] <adam> If I'm understanding the argument here, it could equivalently be used to argue that the IESG doesn't need an appeals chain either though, right?
[23:48:40] <adam> Like, if "replace them at the next nomcom" is the only redress... why isn't that good for other bodies?
[23:49:32] John (Clone) Levine joins the room
[23:49:35] <Martin Thomson> I think that an appeals process is valuable for the purposes of ensuring that chairs remain accountable.
[23:49:43] <adam> Same.
[23:49:58] <Mark Nottingham> +1
[23:50:21] <Martin Thomson> it doesn't need to be elaborate
[23:50:23] <JcK> So, however, is a working/ workable recall process and we have just about never had one of those.
[23:50:59] <adam> Yeah, I think it would be foolish to take a process that we have demonstrated an inability to work with and decide that it's the key mechanism for responsibility here.
[23:53:15] <Martin Thomson> That is not at all what I suggested.
[23:53:51] <adam> I think this is not giving the RPC much credit for knowing their craft.
[23:54:33] <Martin Thomson> +1 adam
[23:54:42] <Mark Nottingham> When someone directly attacks / refutes / questions a previous statement like this, I'd hope that the Chairs give the preceding speaker an opportunity to respond afterwards
[23:54:49] <Mark Nottingham> otherwise this is going to be massively inefficient
[23:55:51] <adam> Mike, meet MMUSIC. MMUSIC, meet Mike. I'll let you take it from here.
[23:56:01] <Mark Nottingham> Say hello to HTTP!
[23:56:14] <Martin Thomson> answer is: if you care about consistency, document it; and what adam said regarding the RPC professionalism
[23:59:54] <ekr@jabber.org> Also, TLS