what is a problem

[Leslie Daigle]

I think we need to spend some more time figuring out what is
"a problem" and what is "a symptom that is really bothersome."

I would argue that the IESG not having a charter is not the
problem [0].  The IESG not being transparent is not the problem.
A simple test:  if a charter popped into existence, and
transparency were instantly achieved, would everything be
wonderful?  No -- we (for the value of "we" looking for
these things) would feel better equipped to... solve our
problems.  So, what are *those* problems?

A problem, for example, from an AD perspective, may be
that ADs have the responsibility for making sure that stuff
that goes through IETF process produces implementable,
reasonable standards.  And yet they only have 2 
checkpoints in a work item's history:  WG chartering
time, and document publication time.  In between
those 2 points, much may happen to take things in
a completely different direction.  (Yes, AD's
can/should be involved through the course of a WG's
life, but honestly, independently of time commitments,
that's indirect persuasion).  

A problem, from an IETF participant perspective, may be 
that IETF participants can carry a given work item so 
far (e.g., through WG process) and then the work item 
enters a state that the peopple who have worked on it 
can no longer determine what is happening to it, whether 
it is progressing, whether or what issues there are.  
Although they are collectively responsible for completing 
the work item, they have no way to read what is going on, 
or when it will re-enter a more determinate state.  And, of 
late, this state has typically lasted from weeks to months 
to years. This is an *IETF* problem, because it means that 
there is a huge chunk of indeterminism in the middle of 
trying to get work done.

An IESG charter and transparency might be implemented
as part of the solution to these problems -- but I think
our discussion for now had better focus on getting
agreement on what the actual work-stoppage, root
cause problems are: things that, if they were magically
addressed, would mean the IETF was functioning well.


Leslie.

[0] Note that I am not saying: I don't believe an IESG
charter should exist.  I'm saying it's not what we need
to discuss first.  What is agitating people that causes
them to say "we need an IESG charter"? 


RJ Atkinson wrote:
> 
> On Wednesday, Nov 13, 2002, at 03:04 America/Montreal, Harald Tveit 
> Alvestrand wrote:
> 
>> --On tirsdag, november 12, 2002 18:57:13 -0500 RJ Atkinson 
>> <rja@extremenetworks.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Tuesday, Nov 12, 2002, at 02:56 America/Montreal, Harald Tveit
>>> Alvestrand wrote:
>>>
>>>> the reason I asked is that *somewhere*, there has to be stated an
>>>> overarching purpose for the organization, which is the driver for the
>>>> actual content of the IESG charter.
>>>
>>>
>>> I could be confused, but I think the purpose of the IESG is "to manage
>>> the day to day processes, Areas, and Working Groups of the IETF".
>>
>>
>> manage them to what purpose?
>> you can't make a value judgment on whether the IESG is doing well or 
>> badly without looking at how its performance impacts the 
>> organization's ability to reach its goals.
>> And that requires a consensus on those goals.
> 
> 
> The IETF creates Internet standards.
> So the IESG manages WGs for the purpose of creating Internet Standards.
> 
> I really don't think we need to make this much more complicated than that.
> We can make things gratuitously complex, but some of us would prefer not
> to do that.
> 
>>>> If we put that into the IESG charter, we have to change it if we change
>>>> substantially the way the IESG works.
>>>>
>>>> If it is on the outside, it may be more stable.
>>>
>>>
>>> Having an IETF charter is not a substitute for having an IESG charter.
>>> One of the reasons folks want an IESG charter is to have the IESG's
>>> powers delineated (even if that is done broadly).  Right now there is
>>> not a common, shared understanding of what powers the IESG has.
>>
>>
>> RFC 2026 and 1603 are reasonably explicit in a lot of places.
> 
> 
> Yes, but do NOT speak to the scope of the IESG's powers.  The IESG
> in practice does lots of things (e.g. ADs in practice are creating
> separate and different policies on mailing list management for WGs
> in their areas) that aren't discussed in either of those RFCs.
> 
>> PS - the reason I'm pushing back on this now (apart from the fact
>> that I haven't done my homework and drafted those charters since 
>> Yokohama)
>> is that I'd like to keep focus on the problems/issues, not the 
>> solutions -
>> the problem you identified is "there is not a common, shared 
>> understanding
>> of what powers the IESG has", and writing an IESG charter is a 
>> possible solution
>> to that.
> 
> 
> Please provide an example of another scalable solution to that problem.
> If there is no documentation on the IESG's scope and charter and limits,
> creating documentation seems like the only possible answer.  Now maybe
> that would be a web page rather than RFC (implementation detail), but
> RFC-2026 and custom implies that it would need to be an RFC that went 
> through
> a BCP-like Last Call.
> 
>> Other problems might be:
>>
>> - the IESG has too much power (specifics)
>> - the IESG has too little power (specifics)
>> - the IESG doesn't wield the power it has brutally enough (specifics)
>> - the IESG wields the power it has too brutally (specifics)
>>
>> If those are the basic problems, writing a charter describing the 
>> status quo ante won't solve them (but might make them come more 
>> closely into focus).
> 
> 
> Writing an I-D would certainly be a good starting place.  And I think
> the IESG are the best ones to draft an initial I-D.
> 
> Maybe a reasonable goal could be to have an I-D online with a 
> strawman/draft
> proposal from the IESG for an IESG charter before the I-D cutoff for the
> Spring 2003 IETF ?
> 
> IESG reluctance to do just this over the past ~5 years is absolutely a big
> part of why the community perceives the IESG as lacking transparency.
> 
> And if IESG wanted to propose an IETF charter I-D along the way, which 
> you seem
> to think is a precondition, I don't think that making such a proposal 
> would garner
> a lot complaints from the community.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Ran
> 


-- 

-------------------------------------------------------------------
"An essential element of a successful journey
    is recognizing when you have arrived."
       -- ThinkingCat (c.1983 - 2002)

Leslie Daigle
leslie@thinkingcat.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------