Subject: Re: ADs who are also WG chairs

From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2003 19:13:13 -0700

I believe this issue should be in the issues draft. I believe that it was
one of the major reasons for the DNSEXT process failure. 

I did not feel that I had effective recourse to the AD when I was
complaining about the activities of a fellow AD.

Another issue was the chair's abuse of the DNS Directorate process to
supress the first WG consensus on OPTIN. According to 2026 only the AD is
allowed to consult the Directorate.

This had a measurable effect on the process. What SHOULD have happened the
first time round is that the WG consensus on the last call SHOULD have been
acknowledged by the chair. The draft SHOULD then have been passed to the AD
who COULD had consulted the Directorate if he choose.

The difference is absolutely critical here. The only reason that the second
third and fourth last calls could be made was that the original last call
result was suppressed. The dynamic of the group discussion would have been
completely different even if the draft had been returned by the IESG for
ammendment or further work.

Incidentally, this whole process has been raised repeatedly with the people
who are now complaining about me complaining. Each abuse of the process was
reported to the ADs at each stage. I have raised the issue with Harald on
numerous occasions. They had the power both to rectify the original abuses
and to prevent further abuses. Instead they decided to take the easy route
and sit by rather than challenge an AD who was also abusing his position as
WG chair.

		Phill

---

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 28 Jun 2003 07:51:12 +0300

Hi all,

My opinion on this is that ADs SHOULD NOT be WG chairs. My reasons,
in no particular order are:

1) concerns about current IESG overload - IESG members have a lot of 
   work as it is.  Adding more work is not a good thing.
2) concerns that individuals will fear challenging AD because of possible
   problems later on in the IETF process - hopefully unlikely, but
   people will speculate - or at least develop conspiracies.
3) potential conflicts of interest & no good guidelines for how
   someone could recuse themselves & under what circumstances they should.
4) concerns about lack of transparancy - already a number of issues
   have been raised about WG creation, WG Chair picking, etc.

But in summary, does the IETF really need an IESG member to be a WG
chair?  There are a lot of talented people in the IETF, why can't a
non-IETF WG chair be found?  Is there a problem about a WG that 
only an IESG member run it? If so, I would imagine the WG probably
has other problems then.

br,
John

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ext James Kempf [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: 27 June, 2003 18:17
> To: Avri Doria; [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: ADs who are also WG chairs
> 
> 
> 
> >
> > One of the issues that came up in the discussion on rough consensus
> > is the issue of ADs being WG chairs - either in their own area or in
> > another area.
> >
> > I do not believe this dual role aspect of IETF management is yet
> > reflected in the problem draft.
> >
> > Should it be?
> >
> 
> As long as the AD acting as a WG chair recluses themselves from any and all
> IESG decisions having to do with the WG, to avoid conflict of interest, I
> don't think there should be a problem. I think its somewhat more
> questionable if the WG is in the same area, since it removes one person from
> oversight, and having two technically knowledgable, independent opinions on
> a WG is often useful.
> 
> That said, I cannot see how, given the workload, an AD can possibly do a
> good job as a WG chair and still expect to fufill their duties as an AD.
> Just on the basis of that alone, it might be sensible to consider some kind
> of strong disapproval, if not restriction, and make it an exceptional case.
> 
> My 0.02 euro.
> 
>             jak
> 
>

---

From: Margaret Wasserman <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2003 09:14:46 -0400

I sent this in a private response, but thought it might be
useful to say more publicly...

>I view the problem of ADs as WG chairs a symptom of a more basic
>problem that is already identified in both documents -- we don't
>do enough to identify and develop new leaders.  We just keep
>overusing the ones that we have until they become so burned out
>that they walk away.
>
>Margaret