Subject: OPEN ISSUE: Improvement WG Oversight

From: Margaret Wasserman <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 15 May 2003 11:59:10 -0400

The process document current says:

>There is an open question regarding who should have oversight
>responsibility for the IETF Improvement WG, including management of
>the WG chairs and approving the output for publication by the RFC
>editor. The two primary options are an IESG-driven approach
>overseen by the General AD, or an ISOC-driven approach overseen by
>the ISOC President. These two proposals are further explained in
>the next two sections.

I think that the Improvement WG should use the IESG-driven
process.

The IESG-driven process is the usual process that the IETF
uses to produce all types of IETF documents, and I don't see
any reason why a different process is needed for us to update
our own organization or processes.  Our current organization
and processes are documented in BCP RFCs that can and should
be changed by the IETF using our existing process.

The IESG members are our selected leaders, and I trust them
to run this process fairly and openly.

I also have three major concerns about the alternative (the
ISOC-driven approach):

   - The ISOC-driven approach effectively cedes control of
     the IETF's processes to ISOC.  I would rather keep
     control of these processes within the IETF.
   - The current Nomcom processes will require some significant
     modification to apply in this situation, as they are not
     intended to (a) produce documents, (b) produce results
     that represent community consensus, (c) have an adequate
     appeals process for this situation.
   - It is not the job of the ISOC President or the ISOC BoTs
     to determine consensus of the IETF community.  That
     responsibility belongs to the IETF Chair and the IESG.

Even though there are issues with the current IETF processes,
I don't think that they are fatally flawed.  IMO, we are
better off using our current well-defined, well-understood
processes than inventing a new set of processes just for
this work.

Margaret

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 16 May 2003 14:54:45 +0200

> I think that the Improvement WG should use the IESG-driven

I concur, for many reasons.

    Brian

-- 
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Brian E Carpenter 
Distinguished Engineer, Internet Standards & Technology, IBM 
On assignment at the IBM Zurich Laboratory, Switzerland

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 16 May 2003 16:19:57 -0700

Folks,

I urge having ISOC oversight.

Let's remember where the current effort came from.  It was during an
IESG Plenary during which a great many folks got up to the microphone
and expressed serious displeasure, much of it with the IESG.

It does not matter whether one agrees or disagrees with any or all of
those speakers.  What is important is that a broad base of discontent
was demonstrated to exist.

It *is* important to note that the kinds of concerns being expressed are
largely identical to ones that were expressed 10 years ago, so the core
issues are structural, rather than personal. However all of this is
ultimately personal.

Having the IESG control the IETF change process is a very pure
structural conflict of interest.

Having ISOC oversee the process is identical to ISOC's role with respect
to NOMCOM, including minor items like choosing a chair for the effort.

When change comes from broad-based discontent, it is essential that the
principal managers of the change process be detached from either side of
the discontent.

d/

ps.  For those who enjoy irony, I'll note that I was prompted to post my
thoughts by Margaret, who knows full well the details of my disagreement
with her...

--
 Dave Crocker <mailto:[email-masked]>
 Brandenburg InternetWorking <http://www.brandenburg.com>
 Sunnyvale, CA  USA <tel:+1.408.246.8253>, <fax:+1.866.358.5301>

---

From: Margaret Wasserman <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 16 May 2003 22:57:36 -0400

Hi Dave,

>was demonstrated to exist.

In my opinion, the existence of discontent does not necessarily
indicate the desire to overthrow the leadership.  If there is
consensus at a plenary that a serious problem exists, I think
that it is the IESG's job to address that problem.  As long
as the IESG acknowledges the problem and is responsive to it,
I don't think that there is any reason to take the IESG out
of the loop.

>structural conflict of interest.

In what sense?  It is quite common for the executive staff of
a company to lead a reorganization, or for other types of
groups to make changes to their own organization and processes.
The U.S. Congress, for example, can pass legislation that
changes the roles and responsibilities of Congressmen, and they
can even give themselves a raise.  As far as I know, none of
this is seen as "conflict of interest".

>to NOMCOM, including minor items like choosing a chair for the effort.

Not really.  The Nomcom is a closed body.  It isn't intended
to run an open process or produce documents.

>thoughts by Margaret, who knows full well the details of my disagreement

Why is this ironic.  I raised the issues because I wanted them to
be discussed.  I think it is only fair that views from both major
sides of each issues should be expressed, so that members of the
WG can make an informed decision between the choices.

I stated my views, but I didn't think that I could fairly state
the pro-ISOC-directed view.

Margaret