Subject: Re: Charters, "normal process" versus ISOC, etc. (was: Re

From: Scott Bradner <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 18 May 2003 11:12:59 -0400 (EDT)

I've been trying to figure out what to say in this debate

I strongly do not like the idea of distorting the normal IETF process in
this or any other "special" case and was having a hard time figuring out
the threat model that said we needed to do so.

I do think that there are quite real problems that need to be fixed but I
do not think that the IETF chair or the IESG are so broken to think that
they could control the evolutionary process by picking a chair that would
do so or to reject the output of a process revision working group even
though they have the structural ability to do so.  I have not seen an
indication that the current IESG members (or the Chair) are so disconnected
from the rest of the IETF to think that they could do that.  (But then
again, I've not seen much input from the current IETF members on this list
so I suppose I could be wrong but I do not think so.)

My preference would be to just do the normal thing and form a working group
in the General Area with the chair(s) for the group being selected by the
IETF Chair (using, for example, the process he used to select the chairs
for the problem statement WG - a quite public process) 

But, if some people are so distrustful of the Chair to keep them from being
able to support the IETF just using IETF processes to change the IETF
(which is what we did the last time) then I think that John's suggestion of
a temporary area is a reasonable one, we have done temporary areas in the
past (with which I have some familiarity) and it is not a distortion of the
basic IETF process.

Scott

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 19 May 2003 09:32:40 +0200

I agree with Scott. I trust Harald and I would be entirely happy for
this work to be done in the General area. But there is no problem about
doing it in an interim area, except that it means finding an interim AD
as well as WG Chairs.

Cobbling together an ad hoc process involving the ISOC Board would
be a big mistake, however. The ISOC Board is automatically part of
the standard process anyway.

   Brian

---

From: Pekka Savola <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 19 May 2003 11:05:58 +0300 (EEST)

> doing it in an interim area, except that it means finding an interim AD

I'm fine with either approach.

But remember that one of the other problems was the shallowness of the
pool for IESG positions.  The chosen AD would have to sit on all IESG
teleconferences and take part in those ballots, read the drafts put before
the IESG etc.etc. too. (Except if these are specifically designated out of 
scope when chartering the temporary AD "position".)

Depending on the level of responsibility, it would be huge task -- and I
rather think that a relatively open process to pick a chair, like with
problem-statement, would be both the fastest and the easiest approach.

-- 
Pekka Savola                 "You each name yourselves king, yet the
Netcore Oy                    kingdom bleeds."
Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Mon, 19 May 2003 10:52:47 -0700

>problem-statement, would be both the fastest and the easiest approach.

The corollary work load also worries me.  If one of the concerns here is
to get someone who can focus very tightly on these issues, then asking
them to take on the role of an AD seems to be an issue.  There is
also a strong risk that having to do the work *as it is now* on a daily
basis may limit the individual's ability to imagine it in new ways.  From
the outside, I know I personally had a concern about how focused on 
tool development
the IESG seemed to me to be.  While I retain the concern, there is no question
that having to do the work now leads me to anticipate the new balloting system
and other planned tools. That may, in turn, limit my ability to 
wonder whether the
basic question of how review gets done should or should not include a ballot.
That I still do wonder about  it may be an artefact of the question 
being raised
in the wider IETF, or it may reflect my own cussedness.  But that tension
would, I believe, be something any new AD for this effort would face.

This may not be an issue if the real work of imagining the future is done
by the working group, and the chair(s) of the working groups are taking
the lead role in developing the consensus around that vision.  If that is
the case, then who takes the documents from the working group to
the wider community seems to me almost a non-issue.  The real question
is how to get a chair or set of chairs.

To make a concrete proposal, then, let me suggest that we do something
akin to our normal process but upside-down.  Have the working group
in the General Area, with Harald as AD tasked with finding the chairs,
but have the working group chairs be confirmed by the NomCom
(or a special purpose NomCom).  This will allow the community to have
a voice in the selection in a way that derives from our current process.
Have any replacement of the chairs require confirmation by this group
as well, so that this oversight by the community continues.  Given the
confidentiality of that body, normal personnel confidentiality can be
maintained, and those being considered can keep their privacy until
a selection is announced.

			regards,
				Ted Hardie

---

From: Margaret Wasserman <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 19 May 2003 13:55:25 -0400

Hi Ted,

>a selection is announced.

To me, this seems less "open" than the process that Harald used
to choose chairs for the problem-statement WG.  In that case, he
listed candidates on a web site and ask for community feedback.

Margaret

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 19 May 2003 14:58:58 -0400

Ted,

Let me play devil's advocate for a moment here...

--On Monday, 19 May, 2003 10:52 -0700 "[email-masked]" 
<[email-masked]> wrote:

>> But remember that one of the other problems was the
>> shallowness of the pool for IESG positions.  The chosen AD
>> would have to sit on all IESG teleconferences and take part
>> in those ballots, read the drafts put before the IESG
>> etc.etc. too. (Except if these are specifically designated
>> out of scope when chartering the temporary AD "position".)

For whatever it is worth, if we can't find a pool of people, 
even if it is small, to fill an IESG position of this type, most 
of the problem-statement effort is on the wrong track because 
real solutions are impossible unless we can dramatically reduce 
the IESG workload or de-skill the AD roles.  I haven't seen 
proposals, or even real "problem statements" lately that address 
either of those topics.  We are still assuming that, while the 
system needs tuning, it is not fundamentally broken.   If we 
can't find people to serve on the IESG for each a one-year term, 
we are "fundamentally broken" and had better deal with that.

I don't think we are in that state, but maybe I'm wrong.

>> Depending on the level of responsibility, it would be huge
>> task -- and I rather think that a relatively open process to
>> pick a chair, like with problem-statement, would be both the
>> fastest and the easiest approach.
>
> The corollary work load also worries me.  If one of the
> concerns here is to get someone who can focus very tightly on
> these issues, then asking them to take on the role of an AD
> seems to be an issue.  There is also a strong risk that having
> to do the work *as it is now* on a daily basis may limit the
> individual's ability to imagine it in new ways.  From the
> outside, I know I personally had a concern about how focused
> on tool development the IESG seemed to me to be.  While I
>...

This is a reasonable concern.  But, again in my devil's advocate 
role, let's turn it around.  We've heard multiple statements to 
the effect that "IETF Chair" is a full-time job.  No one has 
come forward and said that it is really a walk in the park that 
can be done effectively with a few mornings a week.  So, we are 
going to add at least a couple of WGs to the IETF Chair's 
workload, and expect that he will be able to effectively 
coordinate the efforts and output of those WGs with the nomcom, 
lpr, and maybe some other efforts that potentially overlap it. 
That is potentially a lot of work.  If Harald can say "I've got 
the extra cycles, no problem", then there is no argument for a 
separate area independent of the concerns others have had about 
the process of the current IESG supervising this work.    But I 
haven't heard him say that yet.

Similarly, being expected to participate in the work of the IESG 
is both an advantage and a disadvantage.  You've identified the 
latter.  The advantage is that such an AD would get a realistic 
view of what might, and might not, be feasible (at least barring 
the very radical sort of change I hypothesize above if we really 
can't fill IESG positions).  That view would be, IMO, very 
important in managing the relevant WG(s).  And its absence is 
one of the reasons why some of us have been reluctant to see the 
"ISOC management" plan go forward.

And, of course, the IESG and the community could agree --and 
make sure the nomcom knows it-- that this particular AD was 
expected to take "no objection" positions on any technical 
documents originating in other areas.    I don't know whether 
that is desirable of not, but it would have a big impact on the 
workload for that AD and doesn't require any new procedures (see 
below).  One couldn't prevent such an AD from reading all the 
documents and taking positions, of course, but, if the question 
is the total workload, that option would change the equation.

> This may not be an issue if the real work of imagining the
> future is done by the working group, and the chair(s) of the
> working groups are taking the lead role in developing the
> consensus around that vision.  If that is the case, then who
> takes the documents from the working group to the wider
> community seems to me almost a non-issue.  The real question

Absolutely, as long as things go smoothly.  If, for whatever 
reason, they don't, someone is going to need to act like an AD 
with all of the usual authority and responsibility of oversee 
the work of chairs and editors, mediate disagreements and 
first-stage appeals, etc.

> To make a concrete proposal, then, let me suggest that we do
> something akin to our normal process but upside-down.  Have
> the working group in the General Area, with Harald as AD
> tasked with finding the chairs, but have the working group
> chairs be confirmed by the NomCom (or a special purpose
> NomCom).  This will allow the community to have a voice in the
> selection in a way that derives from our current process. Have
> any replacement of the chairs require confirmation by this
> group as well, so that this oversight by the community
> continues.  Given the confidentiality of that body, normal
> personnel confidentiality can be maintained, and those being
> considered can keep their privacy until a selection is
> announced.

Ted, I think we need to be very pragmatic about this. 
Pragmatism argues for no new procedures if there is any other 
option.  "The 'General AD' does it" does not require any new 
procedures.  "Make a new area with a temporary appointment from 
within the IESG and a longer-term one by the Nomcom" requires no 
new procedures.  In both cases, the WG(s) are plain, ordinary, 
WGs, with normal reporting chains to an AD, which obviously 
requires no new procedures.  In either case, the AD using an 
open process, such as the one used to select this WG's 
co-chairs, to pick the WG leadership does not require any new 
procedures.

But your suggestion above, which might have considerable merit 
if we had infinite time, seems to me to be fraught with 
requirements for new procedures and loose ends that should be 
tied before, rather than during or after, problems or ambiguous 
situations.  For example, the Nomcom has never chosen a WG 
chair.  Would the procedures for ADs suffice, or would some 
tuning be needed?  The Nomcom also has no procedures for 
"confirming" a choice made by some other process.  How much time 
would the Nomcom spend working through those issues, and does 
the framework of 2727 or its I-D successor provide it sufficient 
scope/ authority/ guidance to do so?  Assuming that the WG Chair 
is selected (or confirmed) by the Nomcom, does he or she still 
serve at the pleasure of the AD, or does the AD have to initiate 
a formal recall action to make a change?  If such a WG Chair 
resigns for any reason, does the nomcom have to be reconvened to 
deal with an interim vacancy, and what happens to the WG in the 
interim?

Pragmatically, just too many loose ends, I think.

If the workload is acceptable and the community is willing to 
trust the current IESG and IETF Chair to do this, that is a 
reasonable solution.   If either of those conditions is not met, 
then a new area may be a reasonable solution.  There may be 
others out there and, as I said in the note that started this 
thread, my main interest was to stimulate thinking about those 
possibilities.  But I think that new ideas that require new 
procedures are too likely to take us on some rathole tour that 
would unreasonably delay the real work.

Just my opinion, of course.

    john

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Mon, 19 May 2003 15:05:59 -0700

John,
	Some responses inline.

>>>out of scope when chartering the temporary AD "position".)

The above was written by Pekka, not me; I was quoting him in my
note.  Sorry if that was not clear.

>For whatever it is worth, if we can't find a pool of people, even if 
>it is small, to fill an IESG position of this type, most of the 
>problem-statement effort is on the wrong track because real 
>solutions are impossible unless we can dramatically reduce the IESG 
>workload or de-skill the AD roles.  I haven't seen proposals, or 
>even real "problem statements" lately that address either of those 
>topics.  We are still assuming that, while the system needs tuning, 
>it is not fundamentally broken.   If we can't find people to serve 
>on the IESG for each a one-year term, we are "fundamentally broken" 
>and had better deal with that.
>

I have seen folks indicating that the IESG role is sufficiently 
demanding that it
requires essentially full time work, and that the requirement reduces the pool
of folks who can serve in deleterious ways.    In this case, I 
believe we could find
someone to take on the role, but I believe that constraining the choices to the
group of folks who can give that amount of time  is a big 
restriction.  As noted
below, I think the attention the matter is receiving from the community as a
whole makes who nominally oversees the group less a matter of concern than
it might otherwise be.  I would personally focus the issue on how to get and
keep good chairs in these roles rather than focus on the appeals process or
reporting chain.

>role, let's turn it around.  We've heard multiple statements to the 
>effect that "IETF Chair" is a full-time job.  No one has come 
>forward and said that it is really a walk in the park that can be 
>done effectively with a few mornings a week.  So, we are going to 
>add at least a couple of WGs to the IETF Chair's workload, and 
>expect that he will be able to effectively coordinate the efforts 
>and output of those WGs with the nomcom, lpr, and maybe some other 
>efforts that potentially overlap it. That is potentially a lot of 
>work.  If Harald can say "I've got the extra cycles, no problem", 
>then there is no argument for a separate area independent of the 
>concerns others have had about the process of the current IESG 
>supervising this work.    But I haven't heard him say that yet.
>
>Similarly, being expected to participate in the work of the IESG is 
>both an advantage and a disadvantage.  You've identified the latter. 
>The advantage is that such an AD would get a realistic view of what 
>might, and might not, be feasible (at least barring the very radical 
>sort of change I hypothesize above if we really can't fill IESG 
>positions).  That view would be, IMO, very important in managing the 
>relevant WG(s).  And its absence is one of the reasons why some of 
>us have been reluctant to see the "ISOC management" plan go forward.

I agree that a realistic view of what fits the IETF community's goals 
and process is
critical and that the ISOC management plan has some disadvantages in 
that regard
(it trusts the ISOC to make the effort to discover whether an outcome fits the
goals and process, which reduplicates effort done elsewhere at best and results
in a bad fit at worst).

>And, of course, the IESG and the community could agree --and make 
>sure the nomcom knows it-- that this particular AD was expected to 
>take "no objection" positions on any technical documents originating 
>in other areas.    I don't know whether that is desirable of not, 
>but it would have a big impact on the workload for that AD and 
>doesn't require any new procedures (see below).  One couldn't 
>prevent such an AD from reading all the documents and taking 
>positions, of course, but, if the question is the total workload, 
>that option would change the equation.

Less-than-full membership seems to have a whole raft of other potential
problems which we cannot predict, so I'm not sure why this doesn't
fall under the same objections you cite below.

>Absolutely, as long as things go smoothly.  If, for whatever reason, 
>they don't, someone is going to need to act like an AD with all of 
>the usual authority and responsibility of oversee the work of chairs 
>and editors, mediate disagreements and first-stage appeals, etc.

>Ted, I think we need to be very pragmatic about this. Pragmatism 
>argues for no new procedures if there is any other option.  "The 
>'General AD' does it" does not require any new procedures.  "Make a 
>new area with a temporary appointment from within the IESG and a 
>longer-term one by the Nomcom" requires no new procedures.  In both 
>cases, the WG(s) are plain, ordinary, WGs, with normal reporting 
>chains to an AD, which obviously requires no new procedures.  In 
>either case, the AD using an open process, such as the one used to 
>select this WG's co-chairs, to pick the WG leadership does not 
>require any new procedures.

Pragmatism would then seem to argue against having a new AD for this 
area having less
than complete responsibilities and rights, which in turn means we are 
back to the
analysis above of the advantages and disadvantages.  Pragmatism would also seem
to suggest against creating a new AD slot for it, on the theory that 
the IETF has
never before had an AD with a specifically non-technical remit, and 
that installing
one in the current system might be a bad idea.  An untidy memory reminds me of
the arguments as to why there is no Lord High Steward as a permanent 
office in modern
Britain, the right to hold coronations and try peers being both a temptation
and a liability for the individual holding it.  Not an issue for us, 
of course, having
rejected kings and princes, but you see the point.

>But your suggestion above, which might have considerable merit if we 
>had infinite time, seems to me to be fraught with requirements for 
>new procedures and loose ends that should be tied before, rather 
>than during or after, problems or ambiguous situations.  For 
>example, the Nomcom has never chosen a WG chair.  Would the 
>procedures for ADs suffice, or would some tuning be needed?  The 
>Nomcom also has no procedures for "confirming" a choice made by some 
>other process.  How much time would the Nomcom spend working through 
>those issues, and does the framework of 2727 or its I-D successor 
>provide it sufficient scope/ authority/ guidance to do so?

I would argue that we can say: "We will choose N folks from among a 
volunteer pool
by verifiably random means to confirm that those chairing Working 
group A and Working Group B
are individuals appropriate to the task according to the views of the 
community.  If they
do not so confirm any individual proposed to the task, the relevant 
Area Director may
propose one or more replacements if the individual was to serve as a 
single chair and zero
or more replacements if the individual was to serve jointly."   The 
issue may be fraught
with potential issues or loose ends, but getting through it should 
neither take an
infinite time nor be impossible.  It may, of course, not be worth it. 
If having the method
used by Harald to solicit community input on a slate of chairs serves 
the same purpose
and seems more open, then let's close the issue and be done.  I put 
it forward as a
mechanism that might serve should the community's trust of the AD be 
an issue; if
it is not, so much the better.

>   Assuming that the WG Chair is selected (or confirmed) by the 
>Nomcom, does he or she still serve at the pleasure of the AD, or 
>does the AD have to initiate a formal recall action to make a 
>change?  If such a WG Chair resigns for any reason, does the nomcom 
>have to be reconvened to deal with an interim vacancy, and what 
>happens to the WG in the interim?
>
>If the workload is acceptable and the community is willing to trust 
>the current IESG and IETF Chair to do this, that is a reasonable 
>solution.   If either of those conditions is not met, then a new 
>area may be a reasonable solution.  There may be others out there 
>and, as I said in the note that started this thread, my main 
>interest was to stimulate thinking about those possibilities.  But I 
>think that new ideas that require new procedures are too likely to 
>take us on some rathole tour that would unreasonably delay the real 
>work.
>

As John says,
	just my opinion, of course,
				regards,
					Ted Hardie

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 19 May 2003 16:06:06 -0700

hardie,

hqc> below, I think the attention the matter is receiving from the community as a
hqc> whole makes who nominally oversees the group less a matter of concern than
hqc> it might otherwise be.

I'd prefer to view it as desirable to have the criteria, for selecting
the AD who will oversee strategic changes to the IETF organization, as
being at least as stringent as we apply for other AD's.

hqc> I would personally focus the issue on how to get and
hqc> keep good chairs in these roles rather than focus on the appeals process or
hqc> reporting chain.

Indeed, the chair role has the most difficult, daily challenges for
these activities.

>>...that this particular AD was expected to
>>take "no objection" positions on any technical documents ...
>>  One couldn't
>>positions,
hqc> Less-than-full membership seems to have a whole raft of other potential
hqc> problems which we cannot predict, so I'm not sure why this doesn't
hqc> fall under the same objections you cite below.

Because it really is at the choice of the new AD.  The question is what
is expected of them, not what they are "prohibited" from doing.

hqc> Pragmatism would then seem to argue against having a new AD for this
hqc> area having less
hqc> than complete responsibilities and rights,

There was no suggestion that their "rights" be limited, only the
expectations on their use of those rights. So, yes, lessened
responsibilities. But let's note that ADs have varied quite a bit, over
the years, concerning just how much effort they put in and how broadly
they range over IESG activities in other areas.

hqc>   Pragmatism would also seem
hqc> to suggest against creating a new AD slot for it, on the theory that
hqc> the IETF has
hqc> never before had an AD with a specifically non-technical remit

I was AD for the Standards Process, followed by Lyman Chapin holding
that position. The slot was very specifically about IETF process and not
about IETF technical work.

And we had an AD for User Services. It was an important area and
sometimes had a technical component to it, but I believe it mostly did
not.

(However indelicate, I have to express a meta-concern: We have been
experiencing a recent community trend towards people making firm
assertions about IETF history that are at variance with its actual
history. I'm sure the utterances are offered as honest assessments, but
I wonder what we can do to improve their accuracy?)

hqc> I would argue that we can say: "We will choose N folks from among a
hqc> volunteer pool
hqc> by verifiably random means to confirm that those chairing Working 
hqc> group A and Working Group B

1. Whatever the procedure is, you are inventing a new procedure.
Inventing new procedures involves substantial risk. I believe that was
John's point. It certainly is mine. It can't be a good idea to add that
unknown to this mix. (My lobbying for ISOC was based on essentially
replicating the ISOC role for Nomcom.) John K's proposal involves even
less cleverness than I was pursuing, in the sense that it invokes
completely detailed and well-understood procedures about which there
should be no questions. The appeal of that should be overwhelming to
folks.  Less cleverness is more better.

2. I am not sure I followed the nature and details of the "verifiably
random" procedure you have in mind, but the IETF has a very consistent
track record with use of statistics-based procedures in its analytic and
procedure work. The track record makes very clear that we should keep
the heck out of statistics and social processes. We wind up focussing on
the math rather than the methodological validity of the procedure. I'm
glad to discuss our lack of methodology skills at a bar bof.

d/
--
 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: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 19 May 2003 19:31:32 -0400

> note.  Sorry if that was not clear.

I understood that, but the point seemed to be most easily 
responded to in the context of your note.  Sorry for not being 
more clear about it.

>> even if  it is small, to fill an IESG position of this type,
>> most of the  problem-statement effort is on the wrong track
>> because real  solutions are impossible unless we can
>> dramatically reduce the IESG  workload or de-skill the AD
>> roles.  I haven't seen proposals, or  even real "problem
>> statements" lately that address either of those  topics.  We
>> are still assuming that, while the system needs tuning,  it
>> is not fundamentally broken.   If we can't find people to
>> serve  on the IESG for each a one-year term, we are
>> "fundamentally broken"  and had better deal with that.
>>
> I have seen folks indicating that the IESG role is
> sufficiently demanding that it requires essentially full time
> work, and that the requirement reduces the pool of folks who
> can serve in deleterious ways.

I've heard that.  I believe it is true.   But I note that there 
is nothing in draft-ietf-problem-issue-statement-01.txt that 
even vaguely implies "we need to make decisions in a way that 
sacrifices The Right Thing to Do to the total number of 
qualified people we can get to serve on the IESG at a time".  If 
we think that is a problem, then we had better get it into the 
document.  If we don't think it is a problem, then we shouldn't 
be injecting it into this, or any other, discussion.

As an aside, I note that the closest relevant text is section 
2.5, which talks about the management structure not scaling 
well.  It then goes on to describe the 1992 changes as a scaling 
improvement.   There were any number of good reasons for making 
changes in 1992, but scaling wasn't one of them: by taking a 
model in which one group (the IESG) managed the WG process and 
another one (the IAB) reviewed and approved standards-track 
documents and replacing it with the current model in which the 
IESG has all of those responsibilities, we significantly 
increased IESG workload.  So, if viewed from a scaling 
standpoint along, the 1992 changes were pathological.

>   In this case, I believe we
> could find someone to take on the role, but I believe that
> constraining the choices to the group of folks who can give
> that amount of time  is a big restriction.  As noted below, I
> think the attention the matter is receiving from the community
> as a whole makes who nominally oversees the group less a
> matter of concern than it might otherwise be.  I would
> personally focus the issue on how to get and keep good chairs
> in these roles rather than focus on the appeals process or
> reporting chain.

We may just need to disagree on this.  I suggest...

* One never needs to focus on the appeals process and reporting 
chain if things are guaranteed to go smoothly, if work of one WG 
never overlaps that of another, nothing ever goes wrong, chairs 
don't change jobs or otherwise become inactive, there are no 
disputes about consensus, etc.  In those cases, one barely needs 
an AD except to swiftly process WG output through the IESG.  On 
the other hand, if anything does go wrong, it is not the time to 
start devising procedures since whatever is done is likely to 
stir up more suspicions and unpleasantness.

* We have seen, on this list and in plenaries, a good deal of 
concern and suspicion expressed about the IESG and its ultimate 
commitment to change and openness.  I'm not nearly as concerned 
about that issue as those who have repeated raised it and 
proposed radical alternate procedures as a consequence.  But it 
appears to me that having a process that is as much above 
suspicion as is practical (remembering that I consider anything 
that involves new procedures as impractical) is, at least, a 
good idea.

[... text where we agree deleted ...]

>> documents originating  in other areas.    I don't know
>> whether that is desirable of not,  but it would have a big
>> impact on the workload for that AD and  doesn't require any
>> new procedures (see below).  One couldn't  prevent such an AD
>> from reading all the documents and taking  positions, of
>> course, but, if the question is the total workload,  that
>> option would change the equation.
>
> Less-than-full membership seems to have a whole raft of other
> potential problems which we cannot predict, so I'm not sure
> why this doesn't fall under the same objections you cite below.

Hmm.  I didn't say anything that I would construe as "less than 
full membership".   Unless things have changed recently, the 
typical IESG member, on a typical ballot outside his or her own 
area, records a "no objection" ballot.  Sometimes, that means "I 
read the document really carefully and didn't see any problem", 
but that isn't often the case -- I have observed that, usually, 
if the document has been read that carefully, the person votes 
"yes".  More often, it means, at best, "I glanced through it and 
didn't see any serious problems, so I'm happy leaving the 
decision to those who studied it more carefully".    Now, if 
someone were to always vote "no objection" on everything outside 
his or her area, I'd assume that other IESG members would get on 
his or case about not pulling full weight.  But neither doing 
that, nor not doing that, requires a procedural change -- there 
is no requirement that every IESG member personally review and 
take a position on every document.    And I also haven't 
suggested anything that would reduce the "rights" of that AD in 
any way.  In particular, if he or she analyses a document (on 
_any_ topic) and concludes that there are problems, the 
resulting "discuss" would presumably carry as much weight as any 
other "discuss".

>>> NomCom).  This will allow the community to have a voice in
>>> the selection in a way that derives from our current
>>> process. Have any replacement of the chairs require
>>> confirmation by this group as well, so that this oversight
>>> by the community continues.  Given the confidentiality of
>>> that body, normal personnel confidentiality can be
>>> maintained, and those being considered can keep their
>>> privacy until a selection is announced.
>>
>> Pragmatism  argues for no new procedures if there is any
>> other option.  "The  'General AD' does it" does not require
>> any new procedures.  "Make a  new area with a temporary
>> appointment from within the IESG and a  longer-term one by
>> the Nomcom" requires no new procedures.  In both  cases, the
>> WG(s) are plain, ordinary, WGs, with normal reporting  chains
>> to an AD, which obviously requires no new procedures.  In
>> either case, the AD using an open process, such as the one
>> used to  select this WG's co-chairs, to pick the WG
>> leadership does not  require any new procedures.
>
> Pragmatism would then seem to argue against having a new AD
> for this area having less than complete responsibilities and
> rights, which in turn means we are back to the analysis above
> of the advantages and disadvantages.

You are killing a strawman here.  I didn't suggest anything of 
the sort, merely a little IESG tolerance for a reduced 
out-of-area workload for an AD who was time-limited.  And, of 
course, that sort of tolerance has been applied many times 
before --sometimes happily and sometimes not-- when an AD has 
simply not had the time to do all desired work due to external 
pressures.

>  Pragmatism would also
> seem to suggest against creating a new AD slot for it, on the
> theory that the IETF has never before had an AD with a
> specifically non-technical remit, and that installing one in
> the current system might be a bad idea.

Uh... we actually had an AD whose area/job was "process" for a 
while.  It didn't turn out to be a really good idea (the person 
who held the position is on this list and might want to 
comment), but the mission was different.

> An untidy memory
> reminds me of the arguments as to why there is no Lord High
> Steward as a permanent office in modern Britain, the right to
> hold coronations and try peers being both a temptation and a
> liability for the individual holding it.  Not an issue for us,
> of course, having rejected kings and princes, but you see the
> point.

I would if there were any analogy.  You will recall that I 
suggested this only in the context of a temporary area, with a 
limited duration and an explicit sunset/review date.  I think we 
all recognize the risks of a "process AD" who was inclined to 
create all sorts of process WGs and BOFs to keep the area active 
and busy.  I would hope that the Nomcom would avoid appointing 
anyone with those inclinations.  And, if they developed after 
someone was seated, we would have not only the usual recall 
tools, but a one-year term and a one-year expiration for the 
area as protection.  All within normal procedures.

>> But your suggestion above, which might have considerable
>> merit if we  had infinite time, seems to me to be fraught
>> with requirements for  new procedures and loose ends that
>> should be tied before, rather  than during or after, problems
>> or ambiguous situations.  For  example, the Nomcom has never
>> chosen a WG chair.  Would the  procedures for ADs suffice, or
>> would some tuning be needed?  The  Nomcom also has no
>> procedures for "confirming" a choice made by some  other
>> process.  How much time would the Nomcom spend working
>> through  those issues, and does the framework of 2727 or its
>> I-D successor  provide it sufficient scope/ authority/
>> guidance to do so?
>
> I would argue that we can say: "We will choose N folks from
> among a volunteer pool by verifiably random means to confirm
> that those chairing Working group A and Working Group B are
> individuals appropriate to the task according to the views of
> the community.  If they do not so confirm any individual
> proposed to the task, the relevant Area Director may propose
> one or more replacements if the individual was to serve as a
> single chair and zero or more replacements if the individual
> was to serve jointly."   The issue may be fraught with
> potential issues or loose ends, but getting through it should
> neither take an infinite time nor be impossible.  It may, of
> course, not be worth it. If having the method used by Harald
> to solicit community input on a slate of chairs serves the
> same purpose and seems more open, then let's close the issue
> and be done.  I put it forward as a mechanism that might serve
> should the community's trust of the AD be an issue; if it is
> not, so much the better.

A completely new procedure that, as others have pointed out, 
could easily leave the AD with WG Chairs with whom he can't work 
effectively.  And, if the community doesn't trust the AD, 
chair-appointment is not the only thing the AD does.

>>   Assuming that the WG Chair is selected (or confirmed) by
>>   the  Nomcom, does he or she still serve at the pleasure of
>> the AD, or  does the AD have to initiate a formal recall
>> action to make a  change?  If such a WG Chair resigns for any
>> reason, does the nomcom  have to be reconvened to deal with
>> an interim vacancy, and what  happens to the WG in the
>> interim?
>>...

regards,
    john

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 19 May 2003 19:35:56 -0400

--On Monday, 19 May, 2003 16:06 -0700 Dave Crocker 
<[email-masked]> wrote:

>...
> I was AD for the Standards Process, followed by Lyman Chapin
> holding that position. The slot was very specifically about
> IETF process and not about IETF technical work.

My apologies to both you and Lyman -- I had forgotten, in a 
senior moment, that there were (at least?) two separate holders 
of that AD position before we gave up on it.

     john

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Mon, 19 May 2003 17:51:35 -0700

>is expected of them, not what they are "prohibited" from doing.

John has also commented on this, but just to make it clear, I understood
his original remark indicating an "expectation" that they would register
"no objection" as tantamount to saying "this isn't your business".  He
has since corrected my misunderstanding, and I agree that this is 
different from having
less-than-full membership.
>about IETF technical work.

Thanks for this correction.  I had thought that this was always held
in tandem with a technical remit, but I see from:
http://www.ietf.org/iesg_mem.html that both you and Lyman held it
at times when you were not also managing technical areas.

>sometimes had a technical component to it, but I believe it mostly did

My experience of it (and I did some work in it both with Joyce and
April) was that it was technical, often in complex ways.  In many
ways a document like RFC 2635 is a harder to get right than
a MIB.

On the larger question of how to get history right, hopefully we will be
able to count on our longer term members to correct us when these
things are misquoted for a good while.  I'm not sure what to suggest
for making sure the misunderstandings don't arise.

>folks.  Less cleverness is more better.

"Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler."
(attributed to Albert Einstein).

I grant the premise, but I am not sure that selecting a new AD
for a short-term process IESG role follows from it.  Making the
working groups normal groups under General seems to be simpler;
the reason not to do that seem like it might be distrust that the
sitting IESG or IETF chair would follow community wishes
in regards to the working group outcome.  That implied
to me that some oversight role derived from our existing
procedures was warranted.  Using the NomCom as a model
for that was simply because the NomCom process is
community-driven and not selected by any of the sitting bodies.
It is, granted, different from the usual role of the NomCom,
and it would require specification.  Whether that is needed
or not seems to me to rest more on whether re-using the
existing processes will or will not garner trust in the
outcome having been fair enough and open to satisfy
the current need.

As I said in my conclusion to the previous message, if that trust
is not at issue, then I'm happy to move on.

>random" procedure you have in mind,

I was referring to RFC2777 ,"Publicly Verifiable Nomcom Random Selection";
sorry if the atypical shortening was confusing.

				regards,
					Ted Hardie

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Mon, 19 May 2003 18:33:57 -0700

At 7:31 PM -0400 5/19/03, John C Klensin wrote:
>Ted Hardie writes:
>...snip...
>I've heard that.  I believe it is true.   But I note that there is 
>nothing in draft-ietf-problem-issue-statement-01.txt that even 
>vaguely implies "we need to make decisions in a way that sacrifices 
>The Right Thing to Do to the total number of qualified people we can 
>get to serve on the IESG at a time".  If we think that is a problem, 
>then we had better get it into the document.  If we don't think it 
>is a problem, then we shouldn't be injecting it into this, or any 
>other, discussion.

I don't think that phrasing belongs in the document, but I would put 
"We need to be able to
get the right thing done without requiring full-time effort for every 
leadership role" into
the document, and I would put the AD position you posit firmly in the 
category "leadership
role".

>about that issue as those who have repeated raised it and proposed 
>radical alternate procedures as a consequence.  But it appears to me 
>that having a process that is as much above suspicion as is 
>practical (remembering that I consider anything that involves new 
>procedures as impractical) is, at least, a good idea.

And it is here that we do disagree.  We have a different view of the 
balance between:

(new procedures which may alleviate suspicion and may contain bugs)

and

(reuse of old procedures which may not alleviate suspicion and may 
contain mismatches
between original aims and current use).

Fair enough; you may be right.  I suspect a lot of the answer as to 
where to put
the emphasis depends on how much suspicion there is.  The rest of it may be
my over-optimism on how easy it is to create new procedures whose bugs are
less than fatal.

>...snip...
>Hmm.  I didn't say anything that I would construe as "less than full 
>membership".

As I noted in my reply to Dave, it is obvious now that I misread your meaning
on "expectation that they would vote no objection" to mean that they would
be told, in essence, "these are not your concern".  I am sorry for 
misconstruing
your remarks.  I believe my other concerns on timing and viewpoint still
apply.

>>Steward as a permanent office in modern Britain, the ...
>>...snip...
>I would if there were any analogy.  You will recall that I suggested 
>this only in the context of a temporary area, with a limited 
>duration and an explicit sunset/review date.  I think we all 
>recognize the risks of a "process AD" who was inclined to create all 
>sorts of process WGs and BOFs to keep the area active and busy.  I 
>would hope that the Nomcom would avoid appointing anyone with those 
>inclinations.  And, if they developed after someone was seated, we 
>would have not only the usual recall tools, but a one-year term and 
>a one-year expiration for the area as protection.  All within normal 
>procedures.

I am sorry that  you do not see the merit of the analogy.  I'm afraid 
I continue
to see the risks of both ostracism and abuse as real.  Frankly, the advantage
of having someone like the IETF chair do the job is the other IESG members
know that they too will have to live with the result; that seems likely to
limit the risk that they will be treated like a pariah.

On the risk of abuse, given the arguments which Margaret and others have given
on the realism of a one-year term, I think the sunset clause is 
likely to get stretched.
As for the NomCom's recall powers--have they been exercised?  I don't think
they have since 2727, but I have already proved myself no historian once
today.  Even if they have been, using them to recall someone tasked with
shepherding a reform process seems both highly charged and pretty unlikely.

So we are back to trusting the NomCom to pick the right person.  I recognize
that picking ADs has been done by the NomCom and picking chairs has not,
but I don't see the same issues others do.  In one case, they pick the right
people to pick the right chairs, and in the proposal I made they confirm
that the person picking picked right.  Certainly different; not chalk 
and cheese.

Since it bears repeating, just my opinion,

				regards,
					Ted HArdie

---

From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 20 May 2003 14:42:51 +0200

--On 19. mai 2003 14:58 -0400 John C Klensin <[email-masked]> wrote:

[quoting Ted]
> This is a reasonable concern.  But, again in my devil's advocate role,
> let's turn it around.  We've heard multiple statements to the effect that
> "IETF Chair" is a full-time job.  No one has come forward and said that
> it is really a walk in the park that can be done effectively with a few
> mornings a week.  So, we are going to add at least a couple of WGs to the
> IETF Chair's workload, and expect that he will be able to effectively
> coordinate the efforts and output of those WGs with the nomcom, lpr, and
> maybe some other efforts that potentially overlap it. That is potentially
> a lot of work.  If Harald can say "I've got the extra cycles, no
> problem", then there is no argument for a separate area independent of
> the concerns others have had about the process of the current IESG

some pointers, not in alignment.....

- no matter what else, the IETF Chair has to follow the work of the problem 
WG, the solutions WGs and anything else with that much potential IETF 
impact no matter whether he/she is the shepherding AD or not.

- under our current understanding of the Nomcom rules, the IESG cannot add 
members at will; new members have to come through the nomcom process. This 
is one reason why temporary ADs are (so far) drawn only from existing ADs.
And, as others have said, we've got no provisions for "AD, junior grade"; 
you're either on the IESG or you're not.

- as Ted has indicated, spinning up into being an effective IESG member is 
quite a job, and involves a lot of learning. So if you need an AD to be 
effective "day before yesterday", adding a new IESG member isn't optimal.

- one reason why we've gone to 2-AD areas is that there's always SOMEONE to 
talk to whose area of responsibility within the IESG is closely related to 
yours.

- no, it's not a walk in the park.

Drawing no conclusions at this point in time.

---

From: Margaret Wasserman <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 20 May 2003 09:46:01 -0400

Hi John,

I've been thinking more about your proposal, and I'm having
some serious reservations about it.

The main advantage seems to be that it eliminates a minor
issue in the appeals process when "responsible AD" == IETF
chair.  In particular, we end-up skipping a step because
it wouldn't make any sense to go to Harald twice, so we
would need to go straight from the responsible AD to the
IESG.  Not a biggie...

Another possible advantage is that it would reduce overloading
on the IETF chair.  However, I haven't seen any mail from
Harald that indicates that:

	- He is so overloaded that running the process
		groups would represent a problem for him, or
	- That his load would be significantly lessened by
		having a new AD run a new "Process Area".

Another advantage is that this _might_ appease the people who
do not want the current establishment to run the process
of improving the IETF -- this would probably depend on who
is chosen as the Process AD (see below).

In the meantime, this proposal would exacerbate a known
issue -- that the IESG is already too large (with 13 voting
members and 17 or 18 people in attendance) to be an effective
decision making body.

And thinking a couple of steps ahead to who might be chosen...

There would seem to be two primary options for who would
be chosen to run the Process Area:

	- A past IESG member with experience in
		IETF process development.
	- Someone completely new to the IESG.

The first choice probably wouldn't be acceptable to the people
who don't want the effort to be run by the established leaders.

And, the second option causes a further problem.  The IESG
is already dealing with the care and feeding of three new
members.  I've been told that training new members is very
time-consuming for the experienced IESG members, and that
it can take six months or more for a new AD to come fully on
line.

Do we really want an entire area run by a new, inexperienced
IESG member?  And, does it really _decrease_ the load on the
IESG, and Harald in particular, to add a new member to run
this area?

I'd like to try to get to the core issue that is motivating
this (and other) alternative proposal(s) -- some people (I'm
not sure how many) don't trust the existing IESG, and Harald
in particular, to run this process.

I think that we need to determine where the consensus of
the community lies on this issue.  I believe that the
vast majority of us _do_ trust our current leadership.

I'm probably already on the record somewhere as saying that
I trust the existing IESG, and Harald, to run this process.
But, let me say something stronger...

IMO, Harald is the best person in the IETF to run the
improvement process.  _Anyone_ that we pick to run the
"Process Area" would, at best, be second choice.  I
supported Harald's candidacy with the nomcom specifically
_because_ I wanted him to run the process of fixing the
IETF.

I also believe that the Nomcom chose Harald _knowing_
that he was planning to do this.

If there was community consensus that someone else
should be running this process, it should have been
reflected in the Nomcom selection.

Margaret

---

From: "Jeanette Hofmann" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 20 May 2003 16:26:23 +0200

> IESG, and Harald in particular, to add a new member to run

In my understanding, the main reason for John's creative solution is to 
achieve to goals: 1. find a _neutral_ person to lead the reform process, 
preferably not being an IESG member 2. discuss and decide reform options 
on the basis of established procedures. 
> in particular, to run this process.

Now, you make it sound as if those who prefer a newly appointed AD do 
distrust Harald. This is certainly not the case as far as I am concerned. On 
the contrary. My point is that the chances of success of a reform process 
might decrease if the process is led by an authority structure that is obviously 
part of the problem.
> vast majority of us _do_ trust our current leadership.

Again, I don't think that personal distrust is the main issue here. It is about 
creating sound preconditions for the reform process. 

Jeanette

---

From: Margaret Wasserman <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 20 May 2003 10:28:13 -0400

Hi Jeannette,

>might decrease if the process is led by an authority structure that is 

Thanks for making this point.  This is what I meant by trying
to get to the core issue that is motivating this discussion...

I am not sure that I agree with your point, though.  I guess it
depends on your definition of "reform".  Most of my experience
regarding intentional change within organizations has been in
corporate environments where change and reorganization is typically
lead by the existing management.  And, in many cases, this is
quite successful.

>creating sound preconditions for the reform process.

What leads you to believe that having a "neutral" person oversee
the process is necessary to create a sound precondition for the
reform process?

Margaret

---

From: "Jeanette Hofmann" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 20 May 2003 16:44:55 +0200

> lead by the existing management.  And, in many cases, this is

Margaret, you are right. Yet, many companies hire consultants to get input 
from a not affected, third party. (Whether that is a good way to get neutral 
input is a different question.)

> the process is necessary to create a sound precondition for the

By neutral I mean unbiased and open with regard to the solution space. I 
don't want to sound trivial, are you expecting a more thorough explanation?

Jeanette

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 20 May 2003 13:23:52 -0700

Jeanette,

>> >Again, I don't think that personal distrust is the main issue here.
>> >It is about creating sound preconditions for the reform process.

>> the process is necessary to create a sound precondition for the

JH> By neutral I mean unbiased and open with regard to the solution space. I
JH> don't want to sound trivial, are you expecting a more thorough explanation?

Neutral also mean 'not identified with the problematic history'.  The
IETF community does not have to juggle concerns, when dealing with the
new process leader.

The person comes in fresh politically, as well as perspective-ly.

d/

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 20 May 2003 16:28:19 -0400

> Neutral also mean 'not identified with the problematic history'.  

in other words, a neophyte.

Keith

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 20 May 2003 13:33:58 -0700

Harald,

HTA> - no matter what else, the IETF Chair has to follow the work of the problem
HTA> WG, the solutions WGs and anything else with that much potential IETF
HTA> impact no matter whether he/she is the shepherding AD or not.

By that logic, so should all the ADs and IAB members.  And you right.

But it has nothing to do with the work of actually providing oversight.

HTA> - under our current understanding of the Nomcom rules, the IESG cannot add
HTA> members at will; new members have to come through the nomcom process.

Unless the rules have changed, the IESG decides when it wants to create
or eliminate AD slots.  For  new slot, it then asks Nomcom to find
someone to fill it.

Is there a problem with this procedure that you were highlighting, with
respect to a Process AD slot?

HTA> - as Ted has indicated, spinning up into being an effective IESG member is
HTA> quite a job, and involves a lot of learning. So if you need an AD to be
HTA> effective "day before yesterday", adding a new IESG member isn't optimal.

We have a non-optimal situation. A number of folks seem to be spending
far more time worrying about the procedural niceties than about the IETF
performance problems and the community discontent that brought us to
this point.

HTA> - one reason why we've gone to 2-AD areas is that there's always SOMEONE to
HTA> talk to whose area of responsibility within the IESG is closely related to
HTA> yours.

You are worred that a single Process AD won't have anyone to talk with
about their efforts?

d/

---

From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 20 May 2003 23:20:18 +0200

--On 20. mai 2003 13:33 -0700 Dave Crocker <[email-masked]> wrote:

> Harald,
>
>
>
> HTA> - no matter what else, the IETF Chair has to follow the work of the
> >problem WG, the solutions WGs and anything else with that much
> >potential IETF impact no matter whether he/she is the shepherding AD
> >or not.
>

Yes, and they are. But I follow it even more closely than the others.
> But it has nothing to do with the work of actually providing oversight.

It has - oversight cannot be provided without following the work, and a 
significant portion of the work of oversight is to follow (in, ideally, 
near real time) discussions like this one.

> HTA> - under our current understanding of the Nomcom rules, the IESG
> >cannot add members at will; new members have to come through the
> >nomcom process.
>

just that it takes time.

> HTA> - as Ted has indicated, spinning up into being an effective IESG
> >member is quite a job, and involves a lot of learning. So if you
> >need an AD to be effective "day before yesterday", adding a new IESG
> >member isn't optimal.
>

my point was that we either relax the requirement on "operative day before 
yesterday" or we (perhaps initially) load the hat on some existing IESG 
member.
>
>
> HTA> - one reason why we've gone to 2-AD areas is that there's always
> >SOMEONE to talk to whose area of responsibility within the IESG is
> >closely related to yours.
>

no - I was thinking about adding another AD to the General area - either 
assigning the hat to an existing IESG member or asking Nomcom to fill a new 
slot.

                       Harald

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 20 May 2003 15:13:49 -0700

Harald,

HTA> Yes, and they are. But I follow it even more closely than the others.

>> But it has nothing to do with the work of actually providing oversight.

HTA> It has - oversight cannot be provided without following the work, and a
HTA> significant portion of the work of oversight is to follow (in, ideally,
HTA> near real time) discussions like this one.

I started to write a "that's not my point" response to your note but
suddenly realized that this exchange is frankly a distraction.

This is not a company.  The employees are not the final authority in a
company.  So we should not automatically apply corporate management
style to these IETF efforts.  As already noted, even with company change,
independent change agents are often brought in.

We have a disgruntled community.  We have productivity problems.

Some changes are underway, including finally getting better tracking
software. All that is fine, but it has literally nothing at all to do
with the core problems. The core problems are deep and long-standing.
They have to do with transparency, accountability, responsiveness and
conflicting responsibilities.

With Kobe we had constructive change within a few months. Now we are 10
months after Kobe and simple, reasonable suggestions for independent
management of the change effort are being resisted rather vigorously.

It really is time to change this.

John K. has made an extremely constructive proposal as a compromise
between concerns over enjoying the safety of existing process, versus
the need for independence in the change effort.

Please note the word *compromise*.  It needs to be present in far more
of the postings.

   Having any sitting member of the IESG directly in charge of this
   effort is a good way to make sure the effort is not credible.

   It does not matter who that person is; it does not matter what the
   community thinks of them. Having any such person in charge is an
   inherent conflict of interest.

   The community has an institutional concern and it is not reasonable
   for anyone from that institution to manage the change effort.

John's proposal places a *new* person into that same institution, with
the sole mandate to pursue the necessary structural change.

Placing them into the IESG creates some risk with credibility, but at
the benefit of ensuring use of existing process and good access to
current management.

HTA> my point was that we either relax the requirement on "operative day before
HTA> yesterday" or we (perhaps initially) load the hat on some existing IESG
HTA> member.

To repeat: We are already 10 months after Kobe, with no direct changes
yet underway.

The current effort is already a long way from "operative day before
yesterday."

d/

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 20 May 2003 18:33:04 -0400

> conflicting responsibilities.

IMHO the core problem is the inability of many working groups to produce
technically sound output in a timely manner.  Trying to blame this on
IESG is counterproductive.

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 20 May 2003 19:10:54 -0400

--On Tuesday, 20 May, 2003 18:33 -0400 Keith Moore 
<[email-masked]> wrote:

>> Some changes are underway, including finally getting better
>> tracking software. All that is fine, but it has literally
>> nothing at all to do with the core problems. The core
>> problems are deep and long-standing. They have to do with
>> transparency, accountability, responsiveness and conflicting
>> responsibilities.
>
> IMHO the core problem is the inability of many working groups
> to produce technically sound output in a timely manner.
> Trying to blame this on IESG is counterproductive.

Keith and Dave,

Neither of you really need to be reminded of this, but the issue 
isn't placing blame (and I didn't read "blame the IESG" into 
Dave's note).  Getting technically sound standards out the door 
in a reasonable amount of time is, under our current procedures 
and working models, a partnership and shared responsibility 
between the IESG, the individual ADs, WG leadership, and WG 
participants.  If we aren't succeeding in the goal of getting 
technically sound documents through the system and out the door 
in a reasonable time, we need to be pursuing _all_ of the 
aspects of our way of doing things that might cure that problem 
-- or we need to adjust our expectations.

Fortunately or unfortunately, it is a good deal easier to think 
about difficulties and ways in which the management and 
oversight structures might be tuned than it is to think about 
finding a mechanism, or the right variety of pixie dust, that 
would cause all WGs to require sufficient wisdom, insight, and 
resources to avoid the need for review and coordination.

We should identify the problems and expectations, fix what we 
can, and figure out how to adjust our expectations to match what 
we cannot fix.  "Blame the IESG" isn't a constructive part of 
the puzzle, IMO, although "blame some things that IESG does or 
some procedures that IESG has" or "blame some ways in which WGs 
are constituted and work" should both, again IMO, be fair game.

      john

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 20 May 2003 19:26:00 -0400

> Neither of you really need to be reminded of this, but the issue isn't 
> placing blame

agreed.  but we seem to be spending most of our energy concentrating on 
what's wrong with IESG and how to fix it, and very little energy trying 
to understand what is wrong with working groups and how to fix them.

working groups that produce technically sound results rarely have 
problems with IESG.

---

From: "James Kempf" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 20 May 2003 16:25:33 -0700

Dave,

I think you hit this right on.

The issue has to do with the community's perception's in and since
Yokohama and the lack of progress since Yokohama (I read the 10 months
below as Yokohama not Kobe).

John K.'s proposal is a good compromise between the need for
independence and the desire for something that fits the IETF
community's process. Of course, we need an individual who can make
this work,  and getting the right person is always important,  but I
think we need to really decide on something that looks like it will
work and get started on solutions.

            jak

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 20 May 2003 16:36:24 -0700

JCK> We should identify the problems and expectations, fix what we
JCK> can, and figure out how to adjust our expectations to match what 
JCK> we cannot fix.  "Blame the IESG" isn't a constructive part of
JCK> the puzzle, IMO, although "blame some things that IESG does or 
JCK> some procedures that IESG has" or "blame some ways in which WGs 
JCK> are constituted and work" should both, again IMO, be fair game.

very nicely said.

d/

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 20 May 2003 19:49:26 -0400

Keith,

Two brief observations...

--On Tuesday, 20 May, 2003 19:26 -0400 Keith Moore 
<[email-masked]> wrote:

>> Neither of you really need to be reminded of this, but the
>> issue isn't  placing blame
>
> agreed.  but we seem to be spending most of our energy
> concentrating on what's wrong with IESG and how to fix it, and
> very little energy trying to understand what is wrong with
> working groups and how to fix them.

I agree, and agree that this is a problem.   But many members of 
the set of non-pixie-dust possible fixes for WG problems come 
down to looking at how they are chartered, structured, and 
managed.  To the extent to which we are looking at WG problems 
that involve those sorts of solution spaces, the remedies, if 
not the problems, lie again in the vicinity of the IESG... at 
least within our current overall structure.

> working groups that produce technically sound results rarely
> have problems with IESG.

If "problems" includes delays in getting those results approved 
and published --delays that are longer than those WGs consider 
appropriate-- then I think several people have made comments on 
this list that disagree with you.  Some have claimed that this 
is getting better and that the improvements are due to 
procedural changes that the IESG has made spontaneously.  I 
don't have nearly enough first-hand information to support or 
deny either of those claims, although both would make me happy 
if they were true.

Conversely, if there is a disconnect between the time-to-publish 
expectations of a WG that has produced a technically (and 
editorially) sound result and the length of time it takes the 
IESG and the RFC Editor to get a document out, then that would 
fall into the "adjusting expectations" category.  And, in at 
least some cases, that category may turn out to be as important 
as "fixing things".

But, with the understanding that this isn't what you said, there 
is clearly a perception that WGs that produce results that they 
consider technically sound (or at least "good enough") quite 
often see delays in the IESG that they consider unreasonable.

       john

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 20 May 2003 17:13:47 -0700

James,

JK> Yokohama and the lack of progress since Yokohama (I read the 10 months
JK> below as Yokohama not Kobe).

oh my.  how Freudian of me.

yes, I meant Yokohama, even though the beef isn't nearly as good.

d/

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 20 May 2003 17:19:03 -0700

Keith,

KM> agreed.  but we seem to be spending most of our energy concentrating on
KM> what's wrong with IESG and how to fix it, and very little energy trying
KM> to understand what is wrong with working groups and how to fix them.

both of the I-Ds that have been produced discuss rather more than just
the IESG. in fact we were rather pointed to make sure it discussed
working group issues rather than just IESG issue.

I believe what might seem like excessive online discussion about the
IESG, right now, is coming from the fact that efforts to get independent
management of the change process are being met with considerable
resistance... notably from the IESG.

d/

---

From: Margaret Wasserman <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 20 May 2003 20:35:27 -0400

Hi Dave,

>resistance... notably from the IESG.

I don't believe that this fairly characterizes the discussion.
I think that there is a big difference between raising
concerns with a proposal and/or suggesting alternatives and
resisting efforts to get independent management of the change
process.

I raised some concerns with John's proposal...  John didn't
claim that his proposal was the only possible compromise, or
that he had perfected it, so I consider it reasonable to
raise concerns.

There seems to be some assumption that, if we open a new
Process AD position, the nomcom will pick someone who has never
served on the IAB or IESG (and is therefore "untainted").  [Of
course, none of us can control the criteria that the Nomcom
uses to select a Process AD, so they could choose a current
sitting IESG or IAB member, and back-fill.  Or, they could
choose a recent IESG member.  But, the assumption seems to
be that they would choose, as Keith put it, a "neophyte".]

I pointed out that this would also have the downside
of having the process run by someone who is new to the
IESG processes.  I've been told that it takes 6+ months
to come up-to-speed in the IESG, and I believe that.

So, we have a situation where there may be a trade-off
between the speed/efficiency of this process and the desire
to have it run by a "neutral" party.  I think that perfectly
reasonable could associate different priorities with these
two properties.

In one of Harald's recent messages, he alluded to a different
possible compromise...

We could suggest that the IESG add another AD to the General
area and keep the work there.  If this was done so that it
added a seat, instead of adding a new "hat" to an existing AD,
we could have one experienced AD and one new appointee running
the General area.

This would also fix other concerns (under discussion on the
poised list) with having a single-AD area run by the IETF chair.

What do folks think of that idea?

Margaret

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 20 May 2003 19:40:32 -0700

Margaret,

>>resistance... notably from the IESG.

MW> I don't believe that this fairly characterizes the discussion.
MW> I think that there is a big difference between raising
MW> concerns with a proposal and/or suggesting alternatives and
MW> resisting efforts to get independent management of the change
MW> process.

You might want to review the postings from IESG members. The direction
of the concerns has been quite consistent.

You may also want to re-read my posting.

Yes, non-IESG people have also raised questions about John's proposal,
and about the ISOC alternative.

I said "notably".  I did not say "xclusively".

MW> There seems to be some assumption that, if we open a new
MW> Process AD position, the nomcom will pick someone who has never
MW> served on the IAB or IESG (and is therefore "untainted").

There are all sorts of "assumptions" being made.

Oddly the assumptions all seem to presume that John's proposal is not
viable.

MW> I pointed out that this would also have the downside
MW> of having the process run by someone who is new to the
MW> IESG processes.  I've been told that it takes 6+ months
MW> to come up-to-speed in the IESG, and I believe that.

And were this a normal AD slot, that might be important.  It isn't, so
it isn't.

Then, of course, there is the minor likelihood that whoever is selected
actually would be someone with quite a bit of IETF experience.

Gosh. What a thought.

MW> So, we have a situation where there may be a trade-off
MW> between the speed/efficiency of this process and the desire
MW> to have it run by a "neutral" party.

Please forgive me for noting that raising an arbitrary concern will
almost always create the appearance of a trade-off.

You see, the nice thing about such carefully selected concerns is that
they ignore other factors that are likely to be brought into the
selection process.

MW> We could suggest that the IESG add another AD to the General
MW> area and keep the work there.

The need is not for managing the "general area".

The need is for managing a change process that is credible to the
community.

When you pursue alternative proposals, it would help for this concern
about credibility and independence to be given as much credence as
whether the bureaucratic niceties are comfortable to the IESG.

d/

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 20 May 2003 23:35:49 -0400

> to come up-to-speed in the IESG, and I believe that.

Ok.  This has now been said several times.  Ignoring whether or 
not it applies to a possible "process" position or not, I think 
it represents a problem that belongs on the list and that isn't, 
as far as I can tell, there.

ADs serve a 24 month [initial] term.  Under our present system, 
we expect them to hit the ground running, regardless of their 
prior experience.  If they really take six months to come up to 
speed, it implies, first, that any area in which an AD is 
replaced is going to be running at reduced capability for half a 
year, which is a huge hit.  And the AD will be disfunctional, or 
at least below acceptable function levels, for fully one fourth 
of the initial term.

I suggest that, if this is what is happening, it is inefficient 
to the point of silliness and that we should get it on the list 
as a problem and build a framework for considering alternatives. 
Examples: Should we expand the initial term to three years so 
that the spin-up time is 1/6 of the term, rather than 1/4? 
Should we try to alter the transition process from "atomic 
handover after the
plenary of the first meeting of the year" to some flavor of "AD 
Elect" or "understudy" model that would permit most or all of 
that six months of acclimatization to before the new AD actually 
had any WG management responsibilities?

If we see a six-month startup period as real and a problem, 
there are a number of low-disruption ways get around that and to 
meet him again.

         john

---

From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 21 May 2003 10:33:41 +0200

WRT "6 months":

People's capabilities vary. Some are faster than others - and for routine 
matters, procedures and so on, I think the process goes much faster than 6 
months. But the process of learning the personal, technological and 
organizational interactions in working groups you have not previously 
followed is a significant learning curve - it took me more than one IETF 
meeting after I became managing AD for the SNMPv3 group before I understood 
the interactions there well enough to be an effective AD, for instance 
(sometimes I'm not sure I ever got there in the 1 year I did that job).

--On 20. mai 2003 23:35 -0400 John C Klensin <[email-masked]> wrote:

> ADs serve a 24 month [initial] term.  Under our present system, we expect
> them to hit the ground running, regardless of their prior experience.  If
> they really take six months to come up to speed, it implies, first, that
> any area in which an AD is replaced is going to be running at reduced
> capability for half a year, which is a huge hit.  And the AD will be
> disfunctional, or at least below acceptable function levels, for fully
> one fourth of the initial term.
>
> I suggest that, if this is what is happening, it is inefficient to the
> point of silliness and that we should get it on the list as a problem and
> build a framework for considering alternatives. Examples: Should we
> expand the initial term to three years so that the spin-up time is 1/6 of
> the term, rather than 1/4? Should we try to alter the transition process
> from "atomic handover after the plenary of the first meeting of the year"
> to some flavor of "AD Elect" or "understudy" model that would permit most
> or all of that six months of acclimatization to before the new AD
> actually had any WG management responsibilities?

The IESG and IAB have tried to alleviate the hit as much as the current 
procedures permit - the new IESG and IAB members are routinely added to the 
mailing lists and invited to teleconferences soon after they have been 
confirmed. But at least in the IESG, the idea of knowing exactly who's 
responsible at any point in time seems attractive.

But if we manage to get around to thinking about new organizational models 
for the leadership, this definitely bears thinking about.

                          Harald

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 21 May 2003 12:27:48 +0200

Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
...
> assigning the hat to an existing IESG member or asking Nomcom to fill a new

Yes, there is no point whatever in artificially creating a new Area
for this. A new AD, not an existing one, should resolve the perception
of conflict of interest. Ask Nomcom.

Let's get it done, rather the repeating the arguments yet again. 

   Brian

---

From: Margaret Wasserman <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 21 May 2003 06:47:44 -0400

Hi Brian,

>Let's get it done, rather the repeating the arguments yet again.

I like this approach.

Should we just trust the Nomcom to pick the right person, or should
we offer some suggestions regarding the "independence" criteria and
"neutrality" that some have suggested is important to maintaining
the credibility of the process?

Do we specifically want someone who has never served on the I*?
Or at least not in the last 10 years, since everyone seems to agree
that some of the problems have existed at least that long?

And are there particular qualifications for this position, such
as experience with process management and process improvement?

Margaret

---

From: Mark Allman <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 21 May 2003 07:52:22 -0400

> >Let's get it done, rather the repeating the arguments yet again.

me too

> Should we just trust the Nomcom to pick the right person, or
> should we offer some suggestions regarding the "independence"
> criteria and "neutrality" that some have suggested is important to
> maintaining the credibility of the process?
> 
> Or at least not in the last 10 years, since everyone seems to
> agree that some of the problems have existed at least that long?
> 

My hit is that we should leave it to nomcom.  I generally give
nomcom input on particular cnadidates, but also on particular
skills/traits I am interested in.  I'd say we can all funnel our own
feelings to nomcom and we should not have a lengthy debate on what
those should be.  (The most advice I'd want to give nomcom would be:
please solicit input on the skills/traits that are important, not
just on candidates.  But, I assume they know that already.)

allman

--
Mark Allman -- BBN/NASA GRC -- http://roland.grc.nasa.gov/~mallman/

---

From: Mark Allman <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 21 May 2003 07:43:18 -0400

> > I've been told that it takes 6+ months to come up-to-speed in
> > the IESG, and I believe that.
> 
> not it applies to a possible "process" position or not, I think it
> represents a problem that belongs on the list and that isn't, as
> far as I can tell, there.

Or, is this just symptomatic of a larger problem that is the job of
"AD" is just too much?  I.e., if it takes someone 6 months to
spin-up then maybe that means breadth of the AD job is too wide.

(Not that I dislike the data point.  It's quite interesting.  I just
don't know that it represents the problem.)

allman

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 21 May 2003 15:16:58 +0200

> just on candidates.  But, I assume they know that already.)

Yes, I assume Nomcom would make their usual open call for
nominations, and that gives everybody the chance to provide
input.

   Brian

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 21 May 2003 11:02:24 -0400

> Should we just trust the Nomcom to pick the right person, 

Yes.

> or should we offer some suggestions regarding the "independence" criteria
> and "neutrality" that some have suggested is important to maintaining

individuals can, as always, make suggestions to nomcom.  let's not try to do
so as a group; that will just slow the whole process down.
 
> Do we specifically want someone who has never served on the I*?

since working group operation is an even larger problem, perhaps we should
specifically request someone who has never participated in a working group?

Keith

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 21 May 2003 11:37:06 -0400

> not the problems, lie again in the vicinity of the IESG...

Actually I disagree - I think they lie with our processes for operation of
working groups, much of which is beyond IESG control.  Even the part that is
theoretically under control of ADs may be effectively out of reach due to
community expectations and inertia.

> this list that disagree with you. 

But did those groups produce technically sound results, or for instance did
they fail to take into account the impact of the protocol on some other
concern not represented in the WG? And were the delays really unreasaonble
given the amount of review and comment that needs to take place, or did the
group just feel that way?  And were those actions sufficiently recent to be a
fair representation of the current IESG processes?

Maybe concrete examples would help. 

> often see delays in the IESG that they consider unreasonable.

Perceptions are often wrong.  IMHO we are in danger of biasing the process
so that it favors the reinforcement of perceptions over producing sound results.

---

From: "James Kempf" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 21 May 2003 08:55:03 -0700

Margaret,

> be that they would choose, as Keith put it, a "neophyte".]

I don't think this is a valid assumption. There are several people who
have served on IAB or IESG in the far enough distant past that they
would be credible candidates, and some who would be excellent based on
other qualities. There are additionally a couple who have served in
the recent past who I think would make excellent candidates, but who
should probably not be considered due to perceptions about their more
recent association. I feel very uncomfortable with this, because there
is an implication about the current members of the I* which I feel is
completely unfounded, but that perception does exist among some
members of the community, expressed on this list, and I believe we
must deal with it properly in order to have the process be credible.

            jak

---

From: Margaret Wasserman <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 21 May 2003 12:26:21 -0400

Hi James,

At 08:55 AM 5/21/2003 -0700, James Kempf wrote:
>other qualities.

Given that people who were there at the time have indicated that most
of these problems have existed in the IETF for at least 10 years, how
could you reasonably claim that any IAB/IESG member who has served in the
last ten years is any less culpable than current IAB/IESG members?

Margaret

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Wed, 21 May 2003 09:32:09 -0700

>of the concerns has been quite consistent.

You also might want to drop the assumption that anyone speaking
in this forum is doing so as a representative of a corporate body,
internal or external to the IETF.  Current and former members of
various bodies have contributed their experience and concerns, but
as far as I can tell they have done so as individuals.  If at anytime
I personally have been remiss in putting "just my opinion" on
a note, forgive me; I may have assumed it and I invite you to do
the same.

Speaking personally, I have contributed to this working
group draft documents, alternatives, and comments on others' text,
and I have done so  both before and after I took on the role of co-AD
for Applications.  Do not assume my maunderings represent the
consensus opinion of any other body.  They are my own statements,
not a posting from "an IESG member".  Please feel free to disagree,
point out errors, and even think me an idiot, but do me the courtesy
common to this body of thinking me an individual idiot, rather
than a stooge.

On another point, I was not asked during the NomCom process
whether I was planning to shut up for the following two years;
I was asked  a great deal both about my desires for change and
my willingness to participate actively in it.  I expressed then
a desire for change that borders on the radical, and I still hold
that view.  Attempting to push my view out because I
am also trying to work with Chairs to get documents done doesn't
seem very productive; in fact, it seems rude.

On the larger point, let me make clear again my own opinion:
adding a process-specific AD to the current IESG as way to
achieve some form of neutrality in oversight seems to me
to me the wrong approach.  It creates an oversight position
that replicates the current system, when we are engaged in
an effort to re-imagine the system; it may be interpreted as
a statement by this body that the community should not
trust the IETF chair, when this body should be listening to
the community on that point instead; and it forces us to
find someone focused on this issue who can dedicate nearly
full time to it when such a person might have other roles
to play (someone trusted to be this AD is obviously also a
good candidate to be the chair of one of the groups, for example).

As I said above, just my opinion,
				regards,
					Ted Hardie

---

From: "James Kempf" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 21 May 2003 09:40:42 -0700

I like the approach as well. I think we ought to ask for nominations,
and give Nomcom a list of critera. Hopefully, we can get such a list
without a 6 month discussion.

The important thing AFAIC is that there is a dedicated AD, that the
individual is perceived by the community to be capable of doing an
objective and fair job, and that she or he has enough working
knowledge of the IETF, including how IESG and IAB function, that they
are able to make informed judgements about suggestions which come from
the Working Groups. Some proven management skill may also be useful,
as is always the case with an AD. I don't think a new Area is really
necessary, however.

            jak

---

From: "James Kempf" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 21 May 2003 10:02:53 -0700

> last ten years is any less culpable than current IAB/IESG members?

First off, I don't believe any of the current IAB/IESG members are in
any sense "culpable". If the problems are a result of the current
structure of the organization, then even highly talented people with
the best of intentions can have their talents and intentions
frustrated to the point where they give up and quit. I assume, in
fact, that some of the IESG/IAB members who have served during the
last 10 years did, in fact, not continue to serve for exactly that
reason. Their knowledge and understanding could be helpful in guiding
the reform process. And, as I mentioned, many people on this list and
elsewhere continue to place blame on existing members, so to the
extent that some people believe existing IESG members are "culpable"
as you put it, that perception must be accounted for, which appointing
an existing AD won't do.

The only other alternative I can think of that might have good chance
of success is to get someone who knows alot about process engineering
in organizations but might not know much at all about IETF (because
those kinds of people don't tend to hang around IETF). This would
probaby mean someone with world class expertise in management. This is
not unlike how we select ADs for technical areas: they are expected to
be world class experts in their area (routing, security, etc.). But
the downside is, not knowing anything about IETF or having any
commitment to it, they might not understand all the subtilties of the
IETF community and end up alienating people by making uninformed
suggestions.

            jak

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 23 May 2003 15:51:09 +0200

James Kempf wrote:
> any sense "culpable". 

Anyway, even if the old-timers are (and feel) culpable, why does
that disqualify them? Repairing one's past mistakes is supposed to be
a virtue.

I find this whole line of discussion worrying. If applied recursively,
it contaminates everyone on this mailing list; if we weren't part of the
problem, we wouldn't be here. 

   Brian

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 23 May 2003 11:01:27 -0400

--On Wednesday, 21 May, 2003 10:33 +0200 Harald Tveit Alvestrand 
<[email-masked]> wrote:

> WRT "6 months":
>
> People's capabilities vary. Some are faster than others - and
> for routine matters, procedures and so on, I think the process
> goes much faster than 6 months. But the process of learning
> the personal, technological and organizational interactions in
> working groups you have not previously followed is a
> significant learning curve - it took me more than one IETF
> meeting after I became managing AD for the SNMPv3 group before
> I understood the interactions there well enough to be an
> effective AD, for instance (sometimes I'm not sure I ever got
> there in the 1 year I did that job).

But it took you less than one IETF meeting to come up to speed 
and be reasonably effective when you got your first AD job, so 
the equation is more complicated than that.   One thing I'm 
pretty sure about is that your co-AD in applications didn't do 
anything superhuman to help -- he pretty much assumed that you 
would hit the ground running and ask questions if needed, and 
you more than satified that expectation.

So, in one case, you came, new, onto the IESG and came up to 
speed very rapidly, both with regard to IESG procedures and with 
regard to the WGs involved.  In the other, you already knew the 
IESG procedures and had a working relationship with most of the 
rest of the IESG, which should have made things a lot faster, 
and still found taking over a new area a slow process.  Absent 
other data, I suggest this points toward an hypothesis of "some 
areas are harder to take over as AD than others, especially if 
the area is already problematic and/or the new AD hasn't worked 
extensively in it (regardless of his or her background in the 
field of that area)" rather than an issue in coming up to speed 
on the IESG itself.

regards,
      john

---

From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 26 May 2003 08:53:25 +0200

--On fredag, mai 23, 2003 11:01:27 -0400 John C Klensin <[email-masked]> 
wrote:

> But it took you less than one IETF meeting to come up to speed and be
> reasonably effective when you got your first AD job, so the equation is
> more complicated than that.   One thing I'm pretty sure about is that
> your co-AD in applications didn't do anything superhuman to help -- he
> pretty much assumed that you would hit the ground running and ask
> questions if needed, and you more than satified that expectation.

thank you!
(that would have to be Stockholm - the meeting where I came back to Norway 
and wondered why I had a severe case of jetlag without any timezone shift 
:-)

> So, in one case, you came, new, onto the IESG and came up to speed very
> rapidly, both with regard to IESG procedures and with regard to the WGs
> involved.  In the other, you already knew the IESG procedures and had a
> working relationship with most of the rest of the IESG, which should have
> made things a lot faster, and still found taking over a new area a slow
> process.  Absent other data, I suggest this points toward an hypothesis
> of "some areas are harder to take over as AD than others, especially if
> extensively in it (regardless of his or her background in the field of
> that area)" rather than an issue in coming up to speed on the IESG itself.

another possible interpretation of the data is that there's a significant 
time gap between the time of "other people see you performing adequately" 
and the time of "you yourself see yourself performing adequately".

or - that an AD can be harder on him/herself than other people are!

                         Harald