Subject: Trusting the IESG to manage the reform process (was: Re: Doing the Right Things?)

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 02 Jun 2003 15:29:44 -0400

Summary: If we can't trust the current IESG for reform-process 
management, we are in deep trouble.  If we are in that much 
trouble, we should be postponing the little issues because we 
need to be looking at very fundamental change, starting with 
discarding the nomcom process and starting over on our selection 
processes.   I don't believe that is that case, and don't 
believe that the view that it is the case is generally held in 
the community, but it is probably time to face the question.

--------------

In writing the note about an accelerated process, I realized 
I've been making an assumption that needs a bit of explanation. 
Several of the issues here, and what processes might and might 
not work, are ultimately about whether or not IESG is completely 
broken and/or in some "us versus them" mode that implies we 
can't trust them with much of anything, especially anything 
involving reform or evolution.

There are clearly people in the community who believe that the 
current IESG has formed a closed circle, developed a "them 
against us" mentality, and cannot be trusted.  I don't know how 
large that group is (although I suspect "not very" would be a 
good guess).  But, if they are right, we don't need incremental 
procedural suggestions, we need really radical reform.  Why? 
Because at least two consecutive nomcoms, acting independently, 
have selected (or reselected) the current IESG members.  If they 
have managed to select people who would engage in that sort of 
conspiracy of untrustworthy behavior, and to do it so 
successfully that, not only can the IESG behave in undesirable 
ways, but that no one on the IESG has been willing to speak up 
in public and say "I see a problem here, but it is all those 
other folks, not me", then there is something hopelessly broken 
about the nomcom model, probably to the point that we need to 
discard it and start over.

No one has suggested that yet, but, if people seriously believe 
that the IESG can no longer be trusted to manage the standards 
process, or a reform process, or both, I think it is time to 
move past "list problems only" and get that on the table.

Why can't we, instead, just make up some new rules and 
procedures to "control" the IESG?  Because our enforcement 
mechanisms are almost non-existent if the IESG is unwilling. The 
IESG has already demonstrated that, under their general 
responsibility and authority to manage the process, they can and 
will make up procedural rules that bend written procedures 
pretty severely.  If we trust them, that process may need to be 
tuned and constrained (as I believe it does) to make our 
expectations about the limits of what they can do without 
consulting the community more clear.  But, if the trust isn't 
there, any effort to make more/different rules and procedures is 
just to give them additional things that they can ignore.

So, whether it be about a final decision on a new AD, or on 
figuring out which process suggestions can just be accepted and 
deployed without going through a long and complex process, or on 
managing the process in other ways, I think we need to trust 
them to make management-level decisions about how best to move 
forward and hold them accountable for doing that acceptably 
well.  And, if we can't trust them, or at least their good 
intentions and willingness to do what the community wants and 
needs, that far, then we had best stop the process of examining 
the leaves on the forest floor while the place goes up in flames 
around us.

     john

---

From: Eric Rosen <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 02 Jun 2003 15:57:41 -0400

John> Several of  the issues  here, and what  processes might and  might not
John> work, are  ultimately about whether  or not IESG is  completely broken
John> and/or in some "us versus them"  mode that implies we can't trust them
John> with  much  of  anything,  especially  anything  involving  reform  or
John> evolution. 

Which is what makes it absurd to suggest that the IESG can be left to manage
the reform process.  All we'd get are a bunch of new hurdles for WGs to jump
through,  so as  to  make it  even  harder to  oppose  the IESG's  political
objectives. I.e., things would get worse, rather than better. 

So I think this is a poor case for the "let's get some code fielded and then
get the IETF to rubber stamp it" technique ;-)

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 03 Jun 2003 17:26:50 +0200

John C Klensin wrote:
> management, we are in deep trouble.  

We have no choice except to trust them, because the IESG approving
a BCP is the only way (short of anarchy) of effecting change.

So, as you were suggesting, let's divide-and-conquer by cutting off
bite sized problems, designing solutions, and sending them to the IESG.

Er, I'm working on one of those. If everybody here worked on one,
we might be done soon.

   Brian

---

From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 03 Jun 2003 20:16:18 +0200

> Er, I'm working on one of those. If everybody here worked on one,

Brian,

while I agree with you on a number of issues.....

in side conversations, I've made a number of comments on the difficulty of 
crossing a chasm in two steps.
In particular, I believe that the problem:

2.5.1 Span of Authority

   Overt authority in the IETF is concentrated in the small number of
   people sitting on the IESG at that time. Existing IETF processes work
   to funnel tasks on to this small number of people (primarily the Area
   Directors (ADs) in the IESG).  This concentration slows up the
   process and puts a very large load of responsibility on to the
   shoulders of these people who are required to act as the senior
   management for Working Group (WG) chairs as well as acting as quality
   backstops for the large number of documents issued by the IETF.

cannot be solved by making small changes to the IETF and IESG procedures; 
we need to change the way we make decisions, which is a BIG change.

[yes, I have issues with the wording. But that's not important.]

If there is a core problem that must be solved and cannot be solved by 
biting off small pieces, I think we cannot afford to ignore it.

                       Harald

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 4 Jun 2003 00:18:54 -0700

Harald,

HTA> 2.5.1 Span of Authority
HTA>    Overt authority in the IETF is concentrated in the small number of
HTA>    people sitting on the IESG at that time. Existing IETF processes work
HTA>    to funnel tasks on to this small number of people (primarily the Area
HTA>    Directors (ADs) in the IESG).  This concentration slows up the
HTA>    process and puts a very large load of responsibility on to the
...
HTA> cannot be solved by making small changes to the IETF and IESG procedures;
HTA> we need to change the way we make decisions, which is a BIG change.

You have made similar statements a number of times. What do you have in
mind?

The Kobe change to IETF organization was actually quite small.
Strategic. Essential. But small. In fact, for all intents and purposes,
it did not change the procedures for working groups at all. It simply
moved the final authority over standardization from one existing group
to another. (There were some important additional changes, but they were
not related to operational decision-making for daily IETF work.)

Absent specific proposals, we cannot know whether the cited problem of a
bottleneck requires us "to change the way we make decisions" or more
simply requires that we do divide-and-conquer with existing tasks and
responsibilities.

If the latter suffices, then in fact we continue to make decisions in
the same way. We simply target different types of decisions to
different groups.

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: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 04 Jun 2003 14:49:20 +0200

Dave Crocker wrote:
> to another. 

I think there was something else. The IETF also put in place mechanisms
for renewal and accountability of the decision-taking group. And that,
if I'm not mistaken, was to reduce the incidence of hubris.

In other words, there was no attempt to solve a scaling problem.

What Harald is referring to is a scaling problem, imho. 

> (There were some important additional changes, but they were

...or simply give the existing decision-taking group better input to
work with, such as fully reviewed and nit-free documents.

   Brian

---

From: Margaret Wasserman <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 04 Jun 2003 10:05:36 -0400

Hi Brian,

>What Harald is referring to is a scaling problem, imho.

Right.  With the growth of the IETF, the increase in complexity
and scope of our work, etc. the job of an AD has become so
large, time-consuming and complex that there are very few people
who can do it.  And, there are even fewer people who are willing
to do it...  We need to figure out some way to solve this
problem, and that almost certainly involve some reorganization
and re-definition of roles at the top of the IETF.

This could be driven by the IESG -- they could create new roles
under themselves and delegate work.  Or, it could be driven by
the community.  I actually would have preferred the former, but
the IESG seems to have chosen the latter...

>work with, such as fully reviewed and nit-free documents.

I think that we're all in agreement that the quality, timeliness
and predictability of WG output is unacceptably low.

It might be amusing to watch WG chairs come up with ways to blame
the IESG for this -- they didn't charter us properly, they didn't
manage us properly, they didn't give us early feedback, etc...
But, that's all just whining.  It is the responsibility of the
WG chair to manage the WG to produce high quality and timely work,
to get adequate review for our documents, and to manage our
milestones.  And, most of us are falling down on the job.

As I'm sure you know, high quality, nit-free documents don't happen
by accident...  And, it doesn't matter how many times we ask for
them, or whine about the fact that our editors don't produce them.
We need to actually put some quality processes in place during WG
creation of these documents to improve the quality of WG output.

IMO, though, this won't solve the scaling problems that have
lead to the ADs job being so large/complex that there is a
limited pool of people that can/will do it...  That needs to
be solved separately.

Margaret

---

From: Randy Bush <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 4 Jun 2003 07:20:02 -0700

> the IESG seems to have chosen the latter...

not completely true.  increasingly, directorates and less formal
constructs are being used as document and srchitecture review
teams.  this is a massive help, at least for me.

randy

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 4 Jun 2003 10:50:28 -0400

> Strategic. Essential. 

and it's caused a lot of harm.

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 4 Jun 2003 08:36:15 -0700

Keith,

>> The Kobe change to IETF organization was actually quite small.
KM> and it's caused a lot of harm.

the problem with criticizing that original design is the tendency to
miss the context of the situation and the range of choices that were
available.

As is true with so many things that are problematic in the very long
term, it is often not the original decision that is the problem, but the
failure to evaluate and modify it over time.

BEC> I think there was something else. The IETF also put in place mechanisms
BEC> for renewal and accountability of the decision-taking group. And that,
BEC> if I'm not mistaken, was to reduce the incidence of hubris.

The original draft of my posting had text to distinguish the
standardization-authority change from the AD selection change.

The latter has nothing to do with "the style in which we make
decisions", which was the focus of Harald's comment that I was
responding to.

BEC> In other words, there was no attempt to solve a scaling problem.

yup.  i entirely agree.

however, that does not mean the original decision was bad, but that we
have not been improving our system design over time.

but scaling is not the *only* problem that is of concern to our
community.

d/

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 4 Jun 2003 14:34:01 -0400

> term, it is often not the original decision that is the problem, but
> the failure to evaluate and modify it over time.

I view these as separate mistakes.  Failing to provide architectural
oversight was a lousy idea.

> however, that does not mean the original decision was bad

nor does it mean it was good.  I see it as example of trying to solve
one problem in a way that inadvertently made other problems worse.