Subject: MAJOR ISSUE: "Concentration of power"

From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2003 09:42:44 +0200

[Yes, I'm posting more than my usual quota of two issues per day today.
But I've been lax in keeping up, and I DO want the discussion on issues, if 
any, to have a chance of converging before Vienna. But this is it for 
today.]
[Note: This message has two issues, but they concern the same paragraph.]

-issue- reads:

2.5.5 Concentration of Influence in Too Few Hands

   Until the last couple of years, successive IETF Nominating Committees
   have chosen to give heavy weighting to continuity of IESG and IAB
   membership. Thus, the IETF appeared to have created a 'ruling class'
   system which tended to re-select the same leaders from a limited pool
   of people who had proved competent and committed in the past.

   Members of this 'ruling class' tend to talk more freely to each other
   and former members of the 'ruling class' - this may be because the
   'ruling class' has also come to share a cultural outlook which
   matches the dominant ethos of the IETF. Newcomers to the organization
   and others outside the 'ruling class' are reluctant to challenge the
   apparent authority of the extended 'ruling class' during debates and
   consequently influence remains concentrated in a relatively small
   group of people.  This reluctance may also be exacerbated if
   participants come from a different cultural background than the
   dominant one.

ISSUE: Yes, I have issues with this paragraph. I percieve the distinction 
more in terms of trust networks than in terms of classes - and the trust 
networks of most of the percieved "ruling class" described here are, as far 
as I can percieve, rarely if ever inclusive of the whole class, are quite 
changeable, and have lots of members who are not members of any unified 
"class". This is related to my problem stated as "the IETF runs on personal 
networks".
SUGGESTED RESOLUTION: None. This appears to be a viewpoint held by others. 
So I'll just state that I disagree.

ISSUE: The problem identified in [WRONG] as excessive reliance on personal 
relationships is not reflected anywhere in section 2.5. Its closest 
relation is 2.5.5, but the focus seems different.
SUGGESTED RESOLUTION: Adapt text from [WRONG].

[WRONG] = http://www.alvestrand.no/ietf/chair/what-is-wrong.html

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2003 13:36:15 +0200

I agree with Harald's slant on this. The new wording is much better
than in the previous draft, but it still seems to state a perception as
if were were an objective fact. A fairly liberal addition of "perceived"
to the text would help, starting with the title:

 2.5.5. Perceived Concentration of Influence in Too Few Hands

Also, let me focus on one sentence:

>    ...this may be because the
>    matches the dominant ethos of the IETF.

It's hard to see why this is a problem. It says that the leadership
shares the dominant view. That is a compliment in any democracy.

Apart from that, the paragraph describes characteristics of human
society, not those specific to the IETF.

   Brian

---

From: "Joel M. Halpern" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2003 10:49:05 -0400

I agree with both of Harald's characterizations below.
Some folks will argue that the "tend to talk more freely" covers what might 
be called the corner cases Harald refers to.  However, I think that by its 
structure this section misses the point.

If, as I suspect, the folks who have talked about the IETF operating on 
personal trust are correct, then this ('ruling class' tending to talk to 
itself) is merely a symptom.  Folks who have worked together extensively 
will tend to develop an understanding of each other, and this fosters a 
useful trust model which encourages personal communication.  I will tend to 
talk more with folks I have worked with even when I disagree with them 
because I know how to interact with them.  I think that the core issue is 
the reliance on inter-personal trust and inter-personal communication 
rather than an actual concentration of power as described.

I will also note that when the argument about reappointment of the same 
people was raised (as described in the paragraph) I reviewed the data.  It 
is quite clear that for the last 10 years the turnover rate has been quite 
reasonable and would meet any sensible statistical standard.

Yours,
Joel M. Halpern

At 09:42 AM 6/19/2003 +0200, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
>But I've been lax in keeping up, and I DO want the discussion on issues, 
>if any, to have a chance of converging before Vienna. But this is it for 
>today.]
>networks of most of the percieved "ruling class" described here are, as 
>far as I can percieve, rarely if ever inclusive of the whole class, are 
>quite changeable, and have lots of members who are not members of any 
>unified "class". This is related to my problem stated as "the IETF runs on 
>personal networks".

---

From: Scott W Brim <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2003 10:58:33 -0400

On Thu, Jun 19, 2003 10:49:05AM -0400, Joel M. Halpern allegedly wrote:
> If, as I suspect, the folks who have talked about the IETF operating
> on personal trust are correct, then this ('ruling class' tending to
> talk to itself) is merely a symptom.  Folks who have worked together
> extensively will tend to develop an understanding of each other, and
> this fosters a useful trust model which encourages personal
> communication.  I will tend to talk more with folks I have worked with
> even when I disagree with them because I know how to interact with
> them.  I think that the core issue is the reliance on inter-personal
> trust and inter-personal communication rather than an actual
> concentration of power as described.

I would say the problem is not even reliance on personal trust, since
that is essential.  How about: there are no explicit IETF mechanisms
which make it easy for newer people to enter into those webs of personal
trust.

The reliance on personal communication is a problem, and especially as
Harald pointed out, the reliance on personal knowledge for institutional
memory.

.swb

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2003 16:05:16 -0400

I'm very much in agreement with Harald's model of trust networks within
IETF.

I'm not so sure about excessive reliance on personal relationships, but
I think it's an interesting viewpoint which is worthy of further
examination.

Keith

> I percieve the
> distinction more in terms of trust networks than in terms of classes -
> and the trust networks of most of the percieved "ruling class"
> described here are, as far as I can percieve, rarely if ever inclusive
> of the whole class, are quite changeable, and have lots of members who
> are not members of any unified "class". This is related to my problem
> stated as "the IETF runs on personal networks".
> SUGGESTED RESOLUTION: None. This appears to be a viewpoint held by
> others. So I'll just state that I disagree.
> 
> 
> ISSUE: The problem identified in [WRONG] as excessive reliance on
> personal relationships is not reflected anywhere in section 2.5. Its
> closest relation is 2.5.5, but the focus seems different.

---

From: avri <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2003 09:26:17 +0900

There have been several notes in support of the thesis
that it is not a case of  a power disparity based on class,
e.g. membership past or present in an I* body,  but rather
that is it based on trust networks where it is concentrated
based on personal relationships (if i understand it correctly).

Since this was a controversial theme, and since I have heard
privately from many who were originally supportive of the
class notion, I would like to hear more voices on this theme to
determine if there is consensus on the shift from the terminology
of class to the terminology of 'trust networks.'

My perception, so far, has been that those within the trust networks
see them as trust networks, while those who are not in trust
networks tend to see them as a class, for some definition of class.
My perception may be wrong,  and that is why I am asking for more
people to speak on this theme.
Also it is possible, that it is just a semantic issue, and that 'trust
network'  is a gentler more acceptable term then 'class'.

a.

---

From: Scott W Brim <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2003 20:50:58 -0400

> network'  is a gentler more acceptable term then 'class'.

"class" is intentionally polarizing, fissiparous rhetoric.  What's the
real problem?  What are the qualities that distinguish the classes?  If
it's trust, then say trust.  In any case, get to the distinction, skip
the labeling.

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2003 17:57:29 -0700

Hi Avri,
	I recently wrote a draft that touches on this
(submitted today as draft-hardie-12-2-1-00.txt, but
not yet available).  The salient text is:

    The author believes that the IETF has traditionally been
     integrated in two different ways, one formal and one informal.
     The formal integration relates to the steps of the standards
     process and the precursor steps of working group formation and
     chartering.  The informal integration is an overlapping set of
     personal relationships that allows participants to identify
     skills, perspectives, or energy needed to complete the efforts
     identified in the formal processes.  During a period of rapid
     growth and a follow-on period of contraction, the second system has
     been strained to the point of failure.  Though the IETF retains a
     large pool of skilled professionals with energy and needed
     perspectives, the overlap in personal networks is now not
     sufficient to associate those with the efforts the IETF has taken
     on.  This has led to delay, lowered quality, and frustration, both
     among those whose skills and perspectives are not appropriately
     connected to salient efforts and among those whose efforts have
     stalled for lack of energy or early input by those with relevant
     expertise.

	In other words, I also see this in terms of personal
relationships, though I would not use the term trust network.
I think, though, that it is better than the term "class", which
is overburdened with economic ("owning class") and social
("lower class") connotations.
	I think the heart of the matter, though, is that
some significant population that wants to participate
in the IETF feels excluded.  Further, the basis of that
exclusion is such that the participant has no immediate
way of determining either the cause of the exclusion
or the method for achieving inclusion.   Whatever terms
we use, this needs to be captured as an issue.
	As a side note, my personal experience is that this is
very common as a side effect of rapid growth.  Having been part
of several start ups that went through periods of rapid hiring,
going in one case from 7 to 300 in under 18 months, this seems
familiar.  In the cases I have personally been through, the original staff
tended to go again and again to the same people for expertise or
energy, because they simply had not been able to expand their
personal relationships to the other staff in ways that made
them confident of their skill or commitment.
	This is, of course, only my personal view and others'
analysis or belief in this parallel may differ,
			regards,
				Ted Hardie

---

From: Margaret Wasserman <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2003 21:13:56 -0400

>we use, this needs to be captured as an issue.

This resonates with me.

I felt this way during my early IETF involvement.  I
could see places where I could contribute, and I believed
that I had the ability and commitment to make a real
contribution to the IETF (opinions may still differ on
that ;-)), but I didn't understand how to sign-up...

At the current moment, I believe that the IETF has a
small, ridiculously overworked, core group of contributors,
and a much larger, underutilized group of potential
contributors.  How do we fix that?

Margaret

---

From: Randy Bush <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2003 18:43:33 -0700

> that ;-)), but I didn't understand how to sign-up...

please find an example of some organization where you were
a newbie and did not have that problem.  now see if you can
distill why not.  would be a good example for the solution
space.

randy

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2003 21:51:22 -0400

> that ;-)), but I didn't understand how to sign-up...

when I was an AD one newbie actually took the trouble to politely ask me how
to sign up.  I told him he didn't need any permission to submit
internet-drafts, and that if he tried to recognize problems that needed
solving and work on them, could demonstrate that he knew what he was doing,
and could work to get consensus within a group of people with varied
interests, that most working groups would be happy to have his help.  it
seemed to work for him.

---

From: Pete Resnick <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2003 23:17:34 -0500

On 6/19/03 at 6:43 PM -0700, Randy Bush wrote:

>On 6/19/03 at 9:13 PM -0400, Margaret Wasserman wrote:
>
>>At 05:57 PM 6/19/2003 -0700, Ted Hardie wrote:
>>
>>>I think the heart of the matter, though, is that some significant 
>>>population that wants to participate in the IETF feels excluded.
>>
>>I felt this way during my early IETF involvement.
>
>please find an example of some organization where you were a newbie 
>and did not have that problem.

I don't think it's just about being a newbie (or perhaps "newbieness" 
lasts longer in this organization than in others) and I don't think 
it's just about feeling excluded. I do think it's about trust, and I 
do think it's about a perceived difference between those in the I* 
and "everyone else" (and I'm even including WG chairs in the 
"everyone else"). Let me give two examples:

- My understanding is that in the IESG, a shepherding AD does a 
write-up of each document that is to come up for ballot. Some of the 
other ADs often just read the write-up, trusting it to be a fair 
evaluation of the document. ADs trust each other's opinions of the 
technical quality of the document, often voting "no objection" to a 
document that's out of their area of expertise because they trust 
that the shepherding AD or other ADs who are more familiar with the 
document. Assuming my perception is correct of how things work on the 
IESG, I think that's all good stuff. However, working group chairs 
are *not* routinely expected to do something like an AD write-up of a 
document. In fact, I've been directly told by some folks who've been 
on the IESG that the idea that a working group chair could do 
something like a good technical write-up that could be trusted by the 
IESG is absurd. (I have been told by some IESG folk that a chair 
write-up is a really good idea.) That means to me that the IESG does 
not, at least as a general rule, trust even working group chairs, not 
just random newbies. If the view that chairs cannot be trusted is 
widespread, that's a really bad thing.

- I've been in multiple working groups in which I've heard things 
from the chair like, "That's never going to get by the IESG." (When I 
was still young and impressionable, I've heard such words come out of 
my mouth.) Often, I don't think these words are used just to pass off 
blame onto the IESG for a technical issue that the chair thinks is a 
dog (although that's clearly one of the uses). I think the chair 
often means, "No matter how important we think this feature is, no 
matter how technically sound our argument is to have our protocol do 
this, the IESG (or some particular AD) is going to balk at this and 
it will take us forever to make them happy, so let's do it a 
different way that they won't complain about." That is, working group 
chairs do not feel like they and their working groups are trusted by 
the IESG to make good technical judgements, and they equally feel 
that they don't trust the IESG to listen open-mindedly to them.

Both kinds of distrust above are self-perpetuating: If the IESG never 
puts significant trust in chairs to direct their working groups 
appropriately, the chairs feel no responsibility to do so and the 
IESG ends up with work product that they must go through with a fine 
tooth comb because nobody will have done the proper vetting. That 
convinces the IESG that chairs cannot be trusted to produce good 
output, and round we go. If the working groups and chairs don't trust 
the IESG to listen to them, they will continue to use the IESG as a 
backstop, not evaluating problems on their own, and end up with 
crappy output that has to be dealt with late in the game. This then 
causes the IESG to push back late in the game, which the working 
groups perceive as arbitrary and capricious, and are therefore 
convinced that the IESG cannot be trusted, and round we go.

I don't know if you want to call that a "trust network" or a "class" 
problem, but either way, I don't think it's about newbies feeling 
unwelcome.

pr
-- 
Pete Resnick <mailto:[email-masked]>
QUALCOMM Incorporated - Direct phone: (858)651-4478, Fax: (858)651-1102

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2003 01:33:32 -0400

> it's just about feeling excluded. I do think it's about trust,

I think it's actually closer to "calibration" than "trust".  Let me use your
examples to explain.

> document. 

Actually I'd say that ADs know each other well enough to know the areas
in which they agree with one another (and trust the others' expertise)
but also, the areas in which they don't.  So they are able to evaluate 
one anothers' comments more effeciently - they know where to concentrate
their energies looking for details and where it's not necessary to do so.
By contrast, the AD doesn't know the a typical document author or WG
chair that well so he needs to spend more energy reviewing those documents.
Also, ADs write reviews for other ADs, and they do so knowing what those
other ADs are looking for.

> Assuming my perception is correct of how things work on the 
> IESG is absurd. 

I don't share that opinion in the absolute sense, and I used to ask some of my
chairs (those who I had calibrated and who had earned my confidence) to do
those writeups.  The problems that I see with doing this in general are
several: first, often the AD doesn't have the WG chair calibrated so the AD
doesn't know how much he can trust the WG chair's writeup (remember that the
shepherding AD is expected to vote YES for the document when he submits the
writeup, so it's even more important that the AD trust the WG chair for this
to work than that IESG people trust one another). Second, the WG chair doesn't
know the ADs who will be reviewing the writeup  and so doesn't know what will
satisfy them and what will bring extra scrutiny.  Third, WGs have frequently
been known to disregard their charters regarding the scope of their activity,
to violate basic design constraints on their protocols, and to fail to
consider the valid interests of other parties who their protocols affect. So
some WGs are clearly not trustworthy enough to do their own reviews.

> from the chair like, "That's never going to get by the IESG." 

when I was on the IESG, I often heard it said when I was sure it was
erroneous.  it results when people try to predict the IESG's behavior without
having its members calibrated (i.e. without knowing them well enough to
understand what considerations are important to them)

> That is, working group 
> the IESG to make good technical judgements, 

and the chairs are often right about this, and often IESG is right to not
trust them.

> and they equally feel 

and it might be because they haven't tried to explain.  I used to tell WGs
that they shouldn't try to guess what IESG was going to do with something -
they should ask.  For some reason they seemed to be reluctant to do that.

> output, and round we go.

well, the chairs tend to see themselves as advocates for the group's narrow
interests to the IESG rather than as advocates for the community's wide
interests to the group.  as long as that's the case, I don't see how the
chairs can be trusted (in general) to do due diligence either.

---

From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2003 10:17:30 +0200

> it's trust, then say trust.  In any case, get to the distinction, skip

"fissiparous" required a trip to dictionary.com for me :-)
for other people with a similarly limited vocabulary, here's the definition 
from the American Heritage Dictionary:

1) Reproducing by biological fission.
2) Tending to break up into parts or break away from a main body; factious.

"Trust networks" may be the wrong term too; while I don't trust Dave 
Crocker's proposals for action that much (I disagree with him too often!), 
I do trust him to care about many of the same things I do - and we do have 
a long history together. So he's part of my "network" in a way that many 
others aren't - but calling it a "trust network" may be simplistic.
(apologies for using you as a named example again, Dave!)

The reason why I think terminology matters is that it biases the solution 
space.

If the problem is called "class", the likely-to-be-proposed solution is 
"break the class boundary" - such as by forcibly injecting members of one 
"class" into the other, or by removing one "class" en block from power (a 
la China's "cultural revolution").
If the problem is called "network", the likely-to-be-proposed solutions 
involve finding ways to extend the networks, lessen the reliance on the 
networks, or to formalize the networks so that they can be more visible and 
easier to control.

Short version: I think we should keep "network" and throw away "class"; I'm 
not sure about "trust", but "trust" is definitely somewhere in problem 
space.

           Harald

---

From: "James Kempf" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2003 10:16:26 -0700

Avri,

I believe that both phrasings, trust networks and class, are actually red
herrings. In my opinion, the real issue involves responsibility, authority,
and who gets to exercise both. Despite the "no kings and princes" slogan,
IETF is like any organization, in that it requires a collection of managers
to make sure the work gets done and that the work which does get done is of
sufficient quality and timeliness to be useful to the Internet community.
This function requires that these managers have the ability to exercise
power and authority appropriate to their responsibility, including the
assignment of people to positions of lesser power and authority. And, like
any human organization, these managers are going to depend on people they
know and trust for opinions about who to assign to actually perform the work
of the organization.

In the IETF, through circumstances and deliberate choice, we are now in a
situation where much of the responsibility for seeing that work gets done
lies with one group of lower level managers (the WG chairs), while much of
the authority for enforcing quality and timeliness and the ultimate power
for decision making lies with the top management (the IESG).  This kind of
situation is one in which power and authority is concentrated, while
responsibility is delegated. Most US corporations gave up on this model in
the 1980's, in favor of a model where lower level managers were empowered to
make decisions and enforce them commiserate with their responsibility. In
that sense, there is a concentration of power, but it has nothing to do with
class or trust networks.

In some sense, the reality of this situation is at odds with the IETF "press
release" (I mean this in a figurative sense as what we believe about
ourselves) that there really is no authority or power going on and
everybody's opinion is equal. That disconnect has led to phrasing of the
problem as involving class or trust networks.

My 0.02 euro.

            jak

---

From: Thomas Narten <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2003 16:57:05 -0400

A few thoughts about trust...

One thing IMO that complicates the discussion about trust is that some
of the postings could be read to imply "trust in WG chairs" is an all
or nothing thing. I.e., "we don't trust chairs" (by implication for
anything).

For me, trust is earned. That goes for everyone, not just for "some"
folk, or for WG chairs. Even fellow IESG members have (or have had to)
earn my trust. And even then, one trusts certain things, not
necessarily everything. I.e., I trust person A in area X, but not
necessarily in area Y. And this isn't necessarily bad or an indication
of flaws. People have different strengths and weaknesses, and one
places trust accordingly.

> are *not* routinely expected to do something like an AD write-up of a 

I've never asked or expected my WG chairs to do the writeup. I guess
partly this is for historical reasons (it wasn't done that way when I
started). Also, I don't really see this as a place where offloading
the chairs gets much bang for the buck.

> In fact, I've been directly told by some folks who've been 

I think one would need to look at this on a case-by-case basis. And
it's not just about "trust" in some good/bad sense, it also has to do
with experience. Better writeups come with experience, not on the
first try. And whether this is something that needs to be pushed down
the chairs.

> (I have been told by some IESG folk that a chair 

To me, it's not really about "trust". I'm just not sure why the WG
chairs should be doing this (except maybe under the "offload as much
work as possible" theory). In practice, doing the writeup doesn't take
that much time and I suspect that if I asked the chairs to do it, I'd
end up spending as much time in the end just in iterating on the text
and going back and forth. Often (and this is _really_ an important
point), there is no time for that, because I'm trying to get the
writeup finished in time for a deadline in order to get the document
on the agenda for the next telechat. In such cases, one may not have a
few hours or days to iterate. For me, this just isn't a place where it
seems to make sense to try and off load to the chairs that
much. Others may feel differently.

> my mouth.)

I've heard that said too. And I've also too often heard things said
that are a misintepretation or oversimplification of what the IESG (or
an IESG member) has actually said. And I've also heard random people
_assert_ things in the name of the IESG that are just plain
rubbish. Questioning is good. ADs need to be able to explain their
reasoning to everyone. When that is not happening, and folks do things
because "the AD just says so", the system is broken and we all
lose. Note though, that this point is also touching on the same point
discussed earlier about cryptic one liners vs. explaining points in
detail so everyone can understand.

But it's even more complicated sometimes. In one WG document recently,
I raised issues on a document, and the author ended up responding by
saying the equivalent of "I'm going to take this out, because that's
what it will take to get it through the IESG". This is despite my
raising what IMO were real technical issues, *and* a willingness to
talk about them and work through them. But there was simply (from my
perspective) an unwillingness to discuss the actual issues. I really
hate that when it happens (and I pushed on the WG to remove the text
because it was not needed rather than just because I was asking for
it). But I'm sure that for at least some people, the message that will
be relayed will be "removed to satisfy AD" rather than "because it was
the right thing to do". I don't know what to do about that.

> Often, I don't think these words are used just to pass off 

I'm not going to deny the above happens. But there are two sides to
the coin. Sometimes, it's just the easiest way (unfortunately) to deal
with an issue. As a (real) example. One of the too-common themes I've
heard before in WGs is "TCP is too much overhead, we need to invent
our own reliable datagram/UDP transport protocol that is more
efficient than TCP". The above comment is just the simplest way to
deal with issue (in one sentence) when this topic comes up after a
while. The real answer is longer and complex, and it was (in cases I
can think of) extremely hard to get buy-in from those advocating using
something other than TCP.

So, when sound-bite "IESG" reasons are given for not doing something,
we also need to look at the specifics of the issue, because sometimes
what appears to be a "because the AD says so" is actually a bit more
complicated.

When in doubt, question further.

Thomas

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 22 Jun 2003 10:05:14 -0400

--On Friday, 20 June, 2003 16:57 -0400 Thomas Narten 
<[email-masked]> wrote:

>> - My understanding is that in the IESG, a shepherding AD does
>> a  write-up of each document that is to come up for ballot.
>> Some of the  other ADs often just read the write-up, trusting
>> it to be a fair  evaluation of the document. ADs trust each
>> other's opinions of the  technical quality of the document,
>> often voting "no objection" to a  document that's out of
>> their area of expertise because they trust  that the
>> shepherding AD or other ADs who are more familiar with the
>> document. Assuming my perception is correct of how things
>> work on the  IESG, I think that's all good stuff. However,
>> working group chairs  are *not* routinely expected to do
>> something like an AD write-up of a  document.
>
> I've never asked or expected my WG chairs to do the writeup. I
> guess partly this is for historical reasons (it wasn't done
> that way when I started). Also, I don't really see this as a
> place where offloading the chairs gets much bang for the buck.

Thomas, I think this is a matter of style, rather than any trust 
issues (except as in the second bullet below), but I have always 
felt that requiring WG chairs to do those writeups would be 
extremely useful (separately or as a component of a general 
"explicit checkoff" process).  Some reasons:

	* At least in the past, a lot of documents have appeared
	to be stalled between "WG thinks it is finished" and
	"IESG is processing" because the AD hasn't gotten around
	to doing the ballot writeup.  Pushing that
	responsibility toward the WG would appropriately shift
	the locus of the timing problems.
	
	* Having the WG chair responsible for the writeup also
	helps to educate that person, and the WG, as to the
	issues the IESG considers important.  And IESG
	understanding that there are people there who understand
	how to do a writeup, highlight important issues for the
	IESG to consider, etc., could be useful tools for
	leadership development and expansion of "trust networks"
	or whatever we are calling them today.

For those who don't know, the "general explicit checkoff" idea 
would be to expect a WG chair to prepare a writeup (or sign off 
on a check list) that identifies issues the WG has, and has not, 
discussed and what resolution was reached.   A draft writeup 
would probably be part of it.  Its origins lay in wanting to be 
sure that, e.g., a WG had considered whether a particular 
section was needed in a draft: the AD shouldn't need to run 
around trying to figure out whether the absence of an "IANA 
Considerations" sections is because the WG considered the 
question and decided it wasn't needed versus "it fell through 
the cracks".  But, at various times, the suggestion has expanded 
to include a WG summary of significant alternatives that were 
considered and rejected and shy -- the more the IESG understands 
about what the WG considered carefully, the more likely it is to 
trust WG consensus about the outcome.

Those are not solution proposals, just observations about the 
"who does the writeup" question and its broader implications 
some of which are, IMO, symptomatic of deeper problems of 
procedure and maybe attitude.

>> something like a good technical write-up that could be
>> trusted by the  IESG is absurd.
>
> I think one would need to look at this on a case-by-case
> basis. And it's not just about "trust" in some good/bad sense,
> it also has to do with experience. Better writeups come with
> experience, not on the first try. And whether this is
> something that needs to be pushed down the chairs.

And, unless we push this stuff onto the chairs, we expect people 
to learn?  How?  A flash of revelation from on high upon being 
seated on the IESG?

Seriously, we make entries on the problem list that amount to

	* Not enough leadership development.
	* Poor mechanisms for getting into the IESG's trust
	network.
	* Too long startup time for new members of the IESG.
	* Too little visibility into how the IESG is actually
	thinking in the WGs.
	* Too little visibility by the IESG into what the WG
	actually considered carefully versus what it let slip by.
	* IESG overload

and so on.  And then we ignore a class of possibility that would 
probably help with all of those issues because, e.g., the WG 
Chairs don't already have the necessary experience.  That, to 
me, is a Problem.

> To me, it's not really about "trust". I'm just not sure why
> the WG chairs should be doing this (except maybe under the
> "offload as much work as possible" theory). In practice, doing
> the writeup doesn't take that much time and I suspect that if
> I asked the chairs to do it, I'd end up spending as much time
> in the end just in iterating on the text and going back and
> forth. Often (and this is _really_ an important point), there
> is no time for that, because I'm trying to get the writeup
> finished in time for a deadline in order to get the document
> on the agenda for the next telechat. In such cases, one may
> not have a few hours or days to iterate. For me, this just
> isn't a place where it seems to make sense to try and off load
> to the chairs that much. Others may feel differently.

But that pressure is, I think, artificial.   The WG chair has to 
write you a note to say "start processing this".  Until you get 
that note, presumably nothing happens (although, presumably, you 
have been following the WG's work all alone, identifying 
problems and discussing them).  If you require a writeup, or a 
checklist, or both, as part of that note, its impact on the IESG 
schedule and deadlines is zero.   Yes, if you don't find the 
writeup satisfactory and have to iterate on it, some time gets 
lost.  But the WG chair gets some education, you might find out 
things about the WG's perspective that you didn't appreciate, 
and the WG gets a better understanding about the issues you (and 
the IESG) are concerned about even before the document(s) go 
into the "ballot" process.

regards,
   john

---

From: Allison Mankin <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2003 10:13:10 -0700

John, all,

>> something like an AD write-up of a  document.

I have some WG chairs who send a writeup when they ask for Last Call.
It does not have all the content that the writeups need to have, so I
use it as part of the end writeup.  I usually write to the
Chairs/authors with some questions about implementation, as this is
one of the sections in the writeup.

But I think we could change our process and have the WG Chairs do the
writeup and have the shepherding AD advise on whether it touches
points that will give work best for the purpose described above.  I
think this would be a very useful thing to do, for the reasons that
John describes.  Also, the WG Summary (see below) is probably best
provided by the Chairs, rather than summarized by the AD from outside.

Allison

P.S. Here is what we start with for these writeups:

----------------------
> Here's the template:
> 
> The IESG has approved the Internet-Draft 'Enhanced Compressed RTP
> (CRTP) for links with high delay, packet loss and reordering'
> <draft-ietf-avt-crtp-enhance-07.txt> as a Proposed Standard.
> This document is the product of the Audio/Video Transport Working
> Group.  The IESG contact persons are Allison Manking and Scott
> Bradner.
>
>
> Technical Summary
>
> (What does this protocol do and why does the community need it?)
>
> Working Group Summary
>
> (Was there any significant dissent? Was the choice obvious?)
>
> Protocol Quality
>
> (Who has reviewed the spec for the IESG? Are there implementations?)