Trusting the IESG to manage the reform process (was: Re:
Doing the Right Things?)
John C Klensin
john-ietf at jck.com
Mon Jun 2 16:29:44 CEST 2003
Summary: If we can't trust the current IESG for reform-process
management, we are in deep trouble. If we are in that much
trouble, we should be postponing the little issues because we
need to be looking at very fundamental change, starting with
discarding the nomcom process and starting over on our selection
processes. I don't believe that is that case, and don't
believe that the view that it is the case is generally held in
the community, but it is probably time to face the question.
--------------
In writing the note about an accelerated process, I realized
I've been making an assumption that needs a bit of explanation.
Several of the issues here, and what processes might and might
not work, are ultimately about whether or not IESG is completely
broken and/or in some "us versus them" mode that implies we
can't trust them with much of anything, especially anything
involving reform or evolution.
There are clearly people in the community who believe that the
current IESG has formed a closed circle, developed a "them
against us" mentality, and cannot be trusted. I don't know how
large that group is (although I suspect "not very" would be a
good guess). But, if they are right, we don't need incremental
procedural suggestions, we need really radical reform. Why?
Because at least two consecutive nomcoms, acting independently,
have selected (or reselected) the current IESG members. If they
have managed to select people who would engage in that sort of
conspiracy of untrustworthy behavior, and to do it so
successfully that, not only can the IESG behave in undesirable
ways, but that no one on the IESG has been willing to speak up
in public and say "I see a problem here, but it is all those
other folks, not me", then there is something hopelessly broken
about the nomcom model, probably to the point that we need to
discard it and start over.
No one has suggested that yet, but, if people seriously believe
that the IESG can no longer be trusted to manage the standards
process, or a reform process, or both, I think it is time to
move past "list problems only" and get that on the table.
Why can't we, instead, just make up some new rules and
procedures to "control" the IESG? Because our enforcement
mechanisms are almost non-existent if the IESG is unwilling. The
IESG has already demonstrated that, under their general
responsibility and authority to manage the process, they can and
will make up procedural rules that bend written procedures
pretty severely. If we trust them, that process may need to be
tuned and constrained (as I believe it does) to make our
expectations about the limits of what they can do without
consulting the community more clear. But, if the trust isn't
there, any effort to make more/different rules and procedures is
just to give them additional things that they can ignore.
So, whether it be about a final decision on a new AD, or on
figuring out which process suggestions can just be accepted and
deployed without going through a long and complex process, or on
managing the process in other ways, I think we need to trust
them to make management-level decisions about how best to move
forward and hold them accountable for doing that acceptably
well. And, if we can't trust them, or at least their good
intentions and willingness to do what the community wants and
needs, that far, then we had best stop the process of examining
the leaves on the forest floor while the place goes up in flames
around us.
john
More information about the Problem-statement
mailing list