Subject: Query: adding additional AD

From: Melinda Shore <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 30 May 2003 09:32:52 -0400

Let's try to come to some closure on this.  Question: Should
we add an additional AD to deal with process issues?  If
your answer is conditional ("yes, but only if a new area is
created; yes, but only if the person is left-handed") please
say so.  We don't need answers explained right now; we're
just trying to see if we've got consensus.  Also, we're not
assuming any particular structure for a new AD - if there's
agreement that we need one we'll come back and try to get
that answered afterwards.

Thanks,

Melinda

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 30 May 2003 09:47:30 -0400

> Question: Should we add an additional AD to deal with process issues? 

my opinion: no.

and on reflection, I don't think it's in scope for this group to decide 
such matters.

---

From: "Joel M. Halpern" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 30 May 2003 09:53:35 -0400

No.

---

From: "Daniel O. Awduche" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 30 May 2003 10:07:45 -0400

No.

Ordinarily, I would have said 'yes', but the effectiveness
of change processes depends significantly on the individuals 
leading it and Harald is doing a good job. 

Cheers,
/Dan

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked]
[mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Melinda
Shore
Sent: Friday, May 30, 2003 9:33 AM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Query: adding additional AD

Let's try to come to some closure on this.  Question: Should
we add an additional AD to deal with process issues?  If
your answer is conditional ("yes, but only if a new area is created;
yes, but only if the person is left-handed") please say so.  We don't
need answers explained right now; we're just trying to see if we've got
consensus.  Also, we're not assuming any particular structure for a new
AD - if there's agreement that we need one we'll come back and try to
get that answered afterwards.

Thanks,

Melinda

---

From: Eric Rosen <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 30 May 2003 10:20:12 -0400

> Question: Should we add an additional AD to deal with process issues?  

Yes.  Otherwise the  designated AD is likely to be seen  as an apologist for
the current system, and the credibility of the effort will suffer.

---

From: Frank Kastenholz <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 30 May 2003 10:39:17 -0400

no

other deliberative bodies that have need for A Process Person
go out and create a staff position called parliamentarian.
furthermore, one of the main jobs of an AD is The Process
so adding another person to manage The Process is an indictment
on how well ADs are doing their job, and when someone is not
doing their job, they usually are replaced...

---

From: Scott W Brim <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 30 May 2003 10:43:29 -0400

no

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 30 May 2003 08:09:07 -0700

Melinda,

MS> Let's try to come to some closure on this.  Question: Should
MS> we add an additional AD to deal with process issues?  If

No.

I was under the impression that the resounding testimony at the IESG
plenary, in Yokohama, was of a rather broad and rather deep discontent
in the community, and that the discontent very much includes concerns
with IESG performance.

Placing responsibility for strategic change directly into the hands of
the people who have resisted making it is not a good way to ensure
results that are credible.

This is not about "intent" or "integrity" or anything else that is
personal.  It is about designing a process that makes sense for the work
that is to be done.  For this kind of process, what makes sense is to
have it led by people with a largely unencumbered history.

d/

ps. Lest we delve into the usual recitations of the wonderfulness of all
the people on the IESG, I'll note that indeed, everyone on the IESG is
wonderful. However, we are 10 months after Yokohama with no changes
implemented (compared with the entire process being done in 4 months
after Kobe) and the change process had no visible effort involving the
IESG until an independent change proposal was circulated.

--
 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: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 30 May 2003 08:21:32 -0700

Dave,

MS>> Let's try to come to some closure on this.  Question: Should
MS>> we add an additional AD to deal with process issues?  If

DC> No.

I wish that more coffee would be all that is needed for me to read more
carefully.

As is obvious from the comments I included, the above 'no' was meant to
be a 'yes'.  We need the change process to be led by folk who are not
current on the IESG.

d/

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 30 May 2003 11:25:10 -0400

> results that are credible.

then whatever we do, we should definitely not form a new working group -
because the working groups are the ones who are most resistant to
change.

you're way out of line accusing the IESG of being resistant to change -
the IESG has been changing incrementally for several years, and the
result has improved.  but the IESG fundamentally can't cause working
groups to produce better quality documents.

---

From: "James Kempf" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 30 May 2003 08:33:21 -0700

Yes, but it is conditional on the term being limited to avoid
instantiating a process bureaucracy. I don't care whether a new area
is created or not, for economy, it should be under General.

            jak

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 30 May 2003 11:43:30 -0400

Uh... a firm, definitive, "Maybe".

I think "new AD" (or "new Area") are decisions the process 
explicitly reserves to the IESG.  Attempted micromanaging of 
that process (or decision) from a WG (or even a plenary) is 
almost certain to cause more harm than the value of either a 
"yes" or "no" decision is worth.   So I hope the IESG will weigh 
the considerations --based, presumably, on the input they have 
already and their understanding of their own needs and 
constraints-- and make a decision.   I hope they will do so 
swiftly, because it is important to get on with the work.   And 
I hope they will choose to explain their reasoning, since there 
are clearly tradeoffs involved.

For the record, my original suggestion was contingent: not 
"let's do this" but "if we need to do something, a new AD (with 
or without a new Area) is preferable to inventing procedures". 
And, to the extent to which I think a new AD would be useful 
(I'm not convinced one way or the other), my focus is more on 
IESG work load levels, possible appeals, and possibly an 
increase in openness resulting from less load and stress than on 
any issues of distrust or "who is reporting to whom" process. 
I hope the IESG will consider those issues for whatever value 
they might have in the balance.

      john

---

From: Scott Bradner <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 30 May 2003 11:50:58 -0400 (EDT)

prefer "no" but "yes" is fine

---
>From [email-masked]  Fri May 30 09:33:13 2003
To: [email-masked]
From: Melinda Shore <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 30 May 2003 09:32:52 -0400
Subject: Query: adding additional AD
Sender: [email-masked]

Thanks,

Melinda

---

From: Susan Harris <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 30 May 2003 12:00:03 -0400 (EDT)

Yes.

---

From: April Marine <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 30 May 2003 09:03:30 -0700 (PDT)

no.

---

From: Bob Hinden <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 30 May 2003 10:18:14 -0700

Melinda,

Yes, as long as the it does not include creating and approving rules for 
how the IESG operates.  The IESG should not be approving it's own operating 
rules.

Bob

---

From: "Jeanette Hofmann" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 31 May 2003 02:36:48 +0200

On 30 May 2003 at 9:32, Melinda Shore wrote:

> we add an additional AD to deal with process issues?

Yes, an additional AD, who is not part of the body that is in need of change 
might be able to manage the process more forcefully and directively. And a 
new AD is a cleaner approach in my view. 

However, I think the option "additional AD" is only worth pursuing if there is a 
clear majority who supports it. Otherwise the weaker option seems more 
legitimate. 

jeanette 

  If

---

From: Margaret Wasserman <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 30 May 2003 22:51:38 -0400

Just for the record...

No, I'd prefer that the IESG didn't add a new AD.

Margaret

---

From: Randy Bush <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 30 May 2003 22:19:08 -0700

> No, I'd prefer that the IESG didn't add a new AD.

agree

---

From: Rob Austein <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 31 May 2003 12:47:57 -0400

At Fri, 30 May 2003 09:32:52 -0400, Melinda Shore wrote:
> 
> Should we add an additional AD to deal with process issues?

No.