Subject: RE: Sloppy Charters (was: Re: Discipline of Internet Protocol Engineering)

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 6 Jun 2003 19:05:26 +0300

Hi John,

> I think those sorts of weak communications are a problem. 
> Without knowing which WG you head, or which AD is involved, I'd 
> suggest that, if you have a continuing poor-communication 
> problem, you need to have some serious conversations with the AD 
> and, if necessary, perhaps with the other AD in the area about a 
> switch, or with the IETF Chair.  If those don't work, you need 
> to think about conversations with Nomcoms or more dramatic 
> actions.

I am not thinking of my AD in particular, but also the IESG in
general.  As I've edited documents in several areas, I've noticed
a general tendancy that the IESG has many balls to juggle, and 
engaging chairs / editors in technical things tends to fall 
(unless it is a discussion during IETF last call).

John

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 06 Jun 2003 12:17:49 -0400

--On Friday, 06 June, 2003 19:05 +0300 "[email-masked]" 
<[email-masked]> wrote:

>> Without knowing which WG you head, or which AD is involved,
>> I'd  suggest that, if you have a continuing
>> poor-communication  problem, you need to have some serious
>> conversations with the AD  and, if necessary, perhaps with
>> the other AD in the area about a  switch, or with the IETF
>> Chair.  If those don't work, you need  to think about
>> conversations with Nomcoms or more dramatic  actions.
>
> general.  As I've edited documents in several areas, I've
> noticed a general tendancy that the IESG has many balls to
> juggle, and  engaging chairs / editors in technical things
> tends to fall  (unless it is a discussion during IETF last
> call).

And, personally, I believe _that_ problem has no solution at all 
unless and until a majority of the IESG are ready to stand up 
and say "we are seriously overloaded, and we are ready to do 
something about it.  We understand that starts with accepting 
the fact that we really can't do everything and then moves on to 
being willing (and anxious) to look closely at any proposal that 
might plausibly reduce load."  I've heard things pretty close to 
that (and pretty consistently) from Harald.  But most of the ADs 
have appeared to me to have been largely silent or to accept the 
status quo.

And, again, I don't think the community gives nearly enough 
support to those who push back, which encourages and reinforces 
all sorts of bad behavior patterns.

    john

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 6 Jun 2003 13:23:34 -0400

> might plausibly reduce load." 

and I suspect that, for this to happen, we'll need to find ways to
shift many of those burdens to other people rather than to simply 
avoid doing them.

---

From: "Spencer Dawkins" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 6 Jun 2003 15:24:36 -0500

Yeah, I'm kind of depressed by the lack of feedback from ADs on
current AD workload. How would the rest of us know?

But to focus on the documents - the problem resolution draft is
fairly explicit in section 4.5 about the "huge time commitment" required
to serve on IESG, in the context that this seriously reduces the pool
of potential leaders for NOMCOM.

I'm talking about the bullet that begins

     "- The current organization of the IETF does not scale. "

Could we hear from some other people who have been in this role? Are
we (the editorial team) just making this up, or is this really an issue?

Spencer, who is unpleasantly surprised that he can't find text in the
problem draft on this specific point... 2.5.1 says "very large load
of responsibility", but doesn't say "TOO large".

----- Original Message -----
From: "John C Klensin" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>
Sent: Friday, June 06, 2003 11:17 AM
Subject: RE: Sloppy Charters (was: Re: Discipline of Internet Protocol
Engineering)

---

From: "Charles E. Perkins" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 06 Jun 2003 13:47:03 -0700

Hello Spencer,

For every dimension, there is a scale, and thus a
potential scalability problem.  Maybe it would be
good to consider various axes separately:
- Number of documents to review
- Number of working groups to coordinate
- Number of architectural principles to enforce
- Number of meetings to attend
- Number of document processing steps to approve
- Number of mailing list contributions to read

That took me about 39 seconds to write, and I am
pretty sure more job responsibilities could be
added to that list.  Not all of these axes are
orthogonal though.  Maybe it would be worthwhile
to figure out how the various parts of the job
might be separated.  For instance, we might discuss
whether document review and shepherding has to be
done by the same persons that schedule BOFs.  It's
not immediately obvious how many differnt different
jobs might be created from the job of one AD.

Regards,
Charlie P.

PS: Charlie's scalability axiom: "If you don't like
     a protocol, you can always claim it isn't scalable".

---

From: Randy Bush <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 7 Jun 2003 14:38:52 -0700

> might plausibly reduce load."

some of us have executed the load reduction proposals by trying
to say "no" to some things and by getting review teams in place.

there are problems with this

  o everybody thinks we should say "no," but to other people's
    bright ideas, not theirs.

  o we catch hell for saying "no" to anything.

  o i often catch hell for having review teams and directorates
    to help me because, among other things, i bet my ass on
    reviewers i know and choose, not those chosen by public
    beauty contests.  note that it is my signature that goes on a
    directorate's recommendation.

damned if you do, damned if you don't.  so, i do what seems
right.

randy

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 07 Jun 2003 21:35:36 -0400

Randy,

Your explanation is exactly the reason I keep suggesting that,
until and unless the community really starts expressing strong
support for load-reduction activities generally and those that
involve saying "no" (or "it isn't good enough, fix it") in
particular, it is difficult for "blaming" the IESG for doing
anything other than making the best of a bad situation.  

I (and (I hope many others) have certainly noticed the "say 'no'
to anything you like, as long as it isn't _my_ idea" nonsense.
The community, and not just the IESG, needs to push back on that
stuff, or we are all, I fear, doomed.

So, on that dimension at least, thanks for trying and please
keep it up.

      john

--On Saturday, June 07, 2003 14:38 -0700 Randy Bush
<[email-masked]> wrote:

>> And, personally, I believe _that_ problem has no solution at
>> all  unless and until a majority of the IESG are ready to
>> stand up  and say "we are seriously overloaded, and we are
>> ready to do  something about it.  We understand that starts
>> with accepting  the fact that we really can't do everything
>> and then moves on to  being willing (and anxious) to look
>> closely at any proposal that  might plausibly reduce load."
> 
>     beauty contests.  note that it is my signature that goes
> on a     directorate's recommendation.
>