Subject: RE: MAJOR ISSUE: "Concentration of power"

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2003 16:27:58 -0500

>> As in any organization there needs to be a system of checks and
>> balances. At this time there does not seem to be any such for the
>> power of the IESG. 
>
>I don't think that's true. There are at least 4 "features" of the IETF
>proces that act as checks and balances on the IESG:

Okay... I guess that is true.

>
>1. The IAB as an advisory board for WG formation (and in practice for many
>major IESG decisions)

For WG formation, yes. What kind of *major* IESG decisions does the
IAB get involved? Are there instances of the IAB challenging and
over-ruling the IESGs decisions (other than in the case of
appeals). Does the IAB get involved only when a view is sought by the
IESG or does the IAB act proactively?

>2. The appeals process

The appeals process causes fear in some of being ostracized by the
IETF community. So not vey effective. Looking at the number of appeals
in the past and outcome, one would be discouraged to take the appeals
route. But I agree that the process provides the capability. I am not
sure how well this works in reality.

>3. The recall process (never tested, for some reason)
>
>4. Payback time, i.e. the NomCom process.

How? By providing input to the nomcom? Does this work?
And looking at the results of the last few nomcoms, I dont see this.

>Now, it's possible we need *more* checks and balances, of course.

Or *more effective* ones than what exists now :)

>   Brian

-Basavaraj

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2003 00:25:52 +0200

Hi,

> IESG or does the IAB act proactively?

My experience is out of date since I left the IAB more than a year ago,
but in my time on the IAB, there were several occasions a year when
the IESG would ask the IAB informally for advice on how to unblock
a situation or decide about a contentious document. And there were
certainly cases where the IAB stuck its nose in. I felt this was
the IAB's job, if it noticed a case where it thought the IESG was at
risk of going off track.

> sure how well this works in reality.

I think it has been very useful. Of course, for the IESG and IAB, an appeal
is a nuisance and looks like a distraction from "real work", and it would
be a problem if there were too many appeals per year. But a small
number of appeals (won or lost) keeps everyone aware that the process
rules deserve respect.
> And looking at the results of the last few nomcoms, I dont see this.

The nomcom gets contradictory input, so their decisions are not always
to everybody's liking.

> Or *more effective* ones than what exists now :)

Can you phrase that as a precise problem statement?

   Brian

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2003 00:25:52 +0200

Hi,

   Brian