Straw process outline for dealing with structural
and practic
John C Klensin
john-ietf at jck.com
Sat Jul 19 04:13:18 CEST 2003
--On Friday, 18 July, 2003 17:47 -0400 Margaret Wasserman
<mrw at windriver.com> wrote:
> At 10:09 PM 7/18/2003 +0200, Jeanette Hofmann wrote:
>> Really? I am not aware that anybody proposed such a model
>> yesterday as described in Elwyn's mail.
>
> My slides included:
>
> Blue ribbon panel/design team?
> - Chosen in some representative fashion
> - Solicits proposals and input from the community
> - Develops a recommendation to reform our management model
> - Recommendation is reviewed and ratified by the community
>
> Although this is nowhere near as detailed, it is similar.
It is also a WG, or maybe a design team plus
restricted-membership WG, by another name and with a slightly
different organizational model. See my earlier note.
>> Our proposal emerged as a response to the problem working
>> group meeting. While there was support for the issue document
>> and the short term improvements of the process document, we
>> seemed to get stuck in a dead end with regard to those
>> problems that affect the IETF's structure. People clearly
>> didn't like the idea to delegate those structural issues to a
>> working group. Or so we thought. That is why we tried to
>> develop a different model, which would be, perhaps, less
>> cumbersome and also integrate more people than a wg.
>
> This makes sense as a follow-on from the Problem WG. However,
> at the plenary, people offered much stronger support for the
> idea that the IESG should propose a solution to these problems
> than they did for any of the other options...
I think it is interesting, and _very_ important, to try to
understand why the impression of the sentiment of the Problem WG
and the response from the Plenary were so different. I hope it
is possible to do that analysis without getting (again) trapped
in the philosophical question of how much authority the plenary
has. My hypothesis...
(1) Regardless of the _authority_ of the plenary, significantly
more IETF participants were sitting there, raising hands, and
generally expressing opinions than have been participating
actively and observably in the Problem WG. Unless there is
evidence that the plenary was somehow "packed" --and I saw
none-- we (and, more importantly, the AD and the IESG) are
obligated to pay very careful attention to the size of that
group and its opinions as probably more reflective of a broader
IETF community than the WG reflects.
(2) A disconnect between a group of active, apparently-informed,
IETF participants of that size and a WG about either problem
analysis or solution approaches suggests that the WG is out of
touch with the community.
(3) Given especially the behavior of this WG and its mailing
list, the most likely explanation of "out of touch" is that most
of the IETF has found the WG, its mailing list traffic flow, and
some of its tone, either unpleasant or overwhelming or
unimportant enough that they have moved on to other things.
This has created a statistical bias between the composition and
opinions of the self-selected WG and that of the community. In
other words, the WG has become an island, having discussions and
reaching conclusions that are out of touch with the IETF
universe.
Now, what to do about this:
(i) It seems to me that the WG membership may need to do less
"talking" (and especially repeating of issues and positions) and
more outreach and listening to the broader community.
(ii) In part because that sort of outreach and listening is hard
and we have no real structure for doing so, we should all be
aware of the limitations of this WG, and any like it, for
determining IETF consensus about policy, changes, and methods.
We may, nonetheless, be an effective body for identifying
"problems" and "issues" ... just not an effective body for
estimating the importance of those issues to the community.
(iii) We should note, and add explicitly to the Problem list,
something like:
Sometimes, because of its composition, a
well-intentioned WG will reach conclusions different
from those of a reasonably-well-informed IETF Community.
This is especially likely when the subject matter of the
WG, or its style of working (discussed elsewhere) drives
a significant fraction of "the rest of" the IETF away or
otherwise prevents their active and effective
participation. Because their primary responsibilities
lie with the WG itself, it is often impossible for WG
leadership to either detect that this is occurring or to
control it: the quest, especially on the WG level, for a
mythical "silent majority" is more likely to lead to
madness or demagoguery than to better understanding and
alignment with the community. It is therefore an
important IESG responsibility, relying on Last Calls and
other input --sometimes including plenary input-- to
understand when such disconnects have occurred and to
correct them. But this type of IESG action almost
inevitably leads to cries of outrage from the WG
(because it had consensus internally) and frustration
about "late surprises". None of this should be
considered a real process problem, and we should be more
concerned if the IESG fails to do its job by searching
for, identifying, and correcting for such disconnects.
But, especially to the extent that it is inevitable in
some cases, the community must learn to understand the
problem and to be supportive of IESG action to detect
and control it (and should insist that the IESG do so).
regardsm
john
More information about the Problem-statement
mailing list