A question about the role of the IESG

[Jonne.Soininen@nokia.com]

Hi Dave,

sorry about the long delay in answering this mail. However, I guess I =
did not explain myself correctly in my first mail. I do have read at =
least some assorted documents from the ietf.org, but seems from your =
mail that I would have not read the correct ones... ;)=20

My experience (obviously not the same as yours) are from the IETF, and =
3GPP. There are many differences in these two organizations, and in =
their purpose. So, most probably one to one comparison would not be of =
much use as what works for one may not work for the other. So, I will =
not even try. However, I'll explain here where my comment came from:

In 3GPP, there is no appointed management like IESG, and IAB in the =
IETF. There is hierarchy, though. The work is done in two levels in =
Technical Specification Groups (TSGs) that coordinate Working Groups =
(WGs) Thus, the TSGs in some sense could be compared in the hierarchy to =
the level of IESG in the IETF. The main difference (in my mind) is that =
the TSGs are practically working groups. They are open to the whole 3GPP =
community. Anybody from 3GPP community interested in the work of a TSG =
can go to their meetings a affect the decisions. Both the TSGs and the =
WGs have a chairperson and one or more vice chairs. These are elected by =
the TSG or the WG in question - they are not appointed.=20

This was what I used in my mind as a comparison point. I do not want to =
start a huge comparison between the IETF, and 3GPP here. I do not think =
that brings us much. We would just end up in a rat hole about the =
philosophical differences of the organizations, which would not bring us =
any closer to the problems that we face in the IETF now. What I wanted =
to understand was, how did IETF end up with this structure that we have =
now. Though that IETF is an open organization some of the current =
procedures seem to be in conflict with the openness principle - at least =
to the untrained eye. Most probably there was a reason for this at the =
time of creation. I would just like to know what that reason was.=20

Cheers,

Jonne.

PS. Thanks for your article. However, I do not think it deals with the =
same issue that I was trying to raise.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ext Dave Crocker [mailto:dhc@dcrocker.net]
> Sent: Friday, December 20, 2002 8:23 PM
> To: Soininen Jonne (NET/MtView)
> Cc: problem-statement@alvestrand.no
> Subject: Re: A question about the role of the IESG
>=20
>=20
> Jonne,
>=20
> You might want to carefully read assorted documents available via
> <http://www.ietf.org, before making the sort of sweeping=20
> assessment you
> offer.
>=20
> As to your question about choice, one place you might look is:
>=20
>          <http://www.brandenburg.com/ietf/ietf-stds.html#StdWay30>
>=20
> The rest of that article may also be helpful.
>=20
> d/
>=20
> Friday, December 20, 2002, 6:05:12 PM, you wrote:
> Jonne> According the current processes, and practices in the=20
> IETF it seems that the IESG has almost unlimited power over=20
> the IETF. The IESG is not really accountable to the IETF=20
> community (e.g.
> Jonne> meeting minutes are not public and only the collective=20
> decisions are communicated), the IESG has no responsibility=20
> towards the general public of the IETF, and it is seen as the=20
> management of
> Jonne> the IETF. In the current model, the IESG supervises,=20
> and has control over the work of the community, and the WGs=20
> execute the operative work. This is somewhat parallel to the=20
> model of a company
> Jonne> where the responsibility is always upwards. In=20
> general, this is rather unique arrangement in a community environment.
>=20
> Jonne> I was just wondering, how this operative model was=20
> chosen, and why this is seen as a more effective model than=20
> models used in other SDOs where the community steers itself=20
> without hierarchical
> Jonne> management?
>=20
>=20
> d/
> --=20
>  Dave <mailto:dhc@dcrocker.net>
>  Brandenburg InternetWorking <http://www.brandenburg.com>
>  t +1.408.246.8253; f +1.408.850.1850
>=20
>=20