ISSUE: Procedural rapid ossification
John C Klensin
john-ietf at jck.com
Fri Jun 6 15:14:54 CEST 2003
A number of list transactions/ discussions in the last few
weeks, and a few recent offline discussions, have convinced me
that we have another problem that both belongs on the list and
calls for thought about this WG, its processes, and those it is
spawning.
Summary: In a system that is designed around having firm general
principles and considerable IESG discretion within those
principles, we are showing a disturbing tendency to turn IESG
"rules of convenience" into rigid strictures that cannot be
violated or deviated from. It is a bad combination.
----
At least prior to the current round of discussions, IETF
discussions of procedures have been driven by a model in which
the procedural BCPs construct a framework for doing work, but
the details of that framework are left for the IESG to fill in.
When issues or crises have arisen, we've generally avoided
making specific procedural changes to compensate, instead
realizing that we could not anticipate all cases and that
"fighting the last war" is not a good way to proceed.
It is exactly this model that makes trusting the IESG so
important: if they cannot be counted on to fill in those details
appropriately and fairly, and to avoid moving their authority
past the boundaries of the framework or ignoring the framework
entirely, we have a problem that no amount of low-level
procedural tinkering is going to fix. That is part of a
different thread; this note is about the present situation and
assumes a trusted and well-behaved IESG.
Over the last decade, the IESG has established a great many
rules to fill in process details. Most of them are well within
IESG authority to "manage the process". But it is important to
remember that these are rules created by the IESG -- in some
cases without a great deal of debate or consideration. As such,
the IESG can change them, make exceptions to them, etc. And we
seem to have lost sight of that and, instead, are burying
ourselves in procedures that rapidly move from organizational
conveniences to rigid and immutable doctrine.
Some examples:
* I-D submission and WG/BOF scheduling deadlines: The
various pre-meeting deadlines for submitting I-Ds and
for requests to schedule meeting slots were worked out
between the IESG and the Secretariat. In the I-D case,
the goal was to be sure that documents could actually
appear well before the meetings started. In the meeting
slot case, a deadline date was needed to permit
carefully balancing requests and the desire to avoid
conflicts of sessions that required the same people.
An additional, although later, constraint involved
getting the agenda printed and ready for distribution at
the meeting.
The reasonableness and appropriateness of such rules is
obvious to anyone who has even carefully contemplated
organizing a complex meeting. But the suggestion that
the IESG cannot make an exception if they consider it
important enough falls somewhere on the scale from
"silly" to "dangerous". The deadline dates are not
fundamental principles that are critical to the
existence of the IETF as we know it. They are useful
guidelines that the IESG has set up and can modify, or
make exceptions to, at will.
* BOF scheduling. Over the years, as pressure for
meetings slots and requests for BOFs has increased, the
IESG has become increasingly specific about requirements
for requesting, and being granted, a BOF. Again, this
is clearly necessary since the alternative would be
having all meeting time taken over by BOFs. Whatever
the requirements are at a given time, they are
requirements imposed by the IESG as part of their job to
efficiently manage the meetings and the process. But,
if the IESG decides that something is important enough
to waive the rules in a particular case, they can do so
since these are _their_ rules. I assume they would not
do that capriciously; I hope that they would explain the
logic for making an exception to the community (and
especially to those whose BOF requests were denied).
But they clearly have authority to make exceptions;
nothing else makes sense.
* What is a WG? And what isn't a WG or BOF? RFCs 2026
and 2418 make some fairly specific statements about WGs
and BOFs and how they operate, particularly those
involved in the standards process. But, unless we get
enough carried away with procedures to read those
documents with an "anything not explicitly permitted is
forbidden" perspective, they don't prohibit other forms
of WG or BOF organization for other purposes, nor do
they prohibit completely different kinds of structures.
So I suggest that, in the general case, a BOF is
anything the IESG says is a BOF, a WG is -- subject to
some constraints about charters, etc.-- anything the
IESG says is a WG, and, if the IESG wants to create a
special type of gathering called, e.g., A Big Hokum and
give it meeting time and mailing lists, nothing we have
procedurally prevents them from doing so and we
shouldn't waste time trying to create specific rules for
such things.
* What, really, is an "umbrella WG"? Along the same
themes as the above, we've had some recent discussion
about "umbrella WGs". I used to think I knew what an
"umbrella WG" was... we had a special word for it, and
the word was "Area" or "Subarea". Under the formal
procedures, the IESG can create and delete areas at its
discretion. It is actually easier, procedurally, to
create an area than to create a WG, since there is no
formal requirement for posting draft charters, allowing
for comments from the community and other standards
bodies, and so on. There are practically no constraints
on the IESG about getting rid of any area either. The
only thing the IESG is prohibited from doing involves
creating an Area and appointing someone outside the IESG
to head it -- that appointment has to be made by the
nomcom. The procedures leave the boundary between
"area" (with an AD on the IESG) and various subarea,
umbrella, and super-WG concepts strictly in the IESG's
hands (along with Big Hokums). But we should avoid
getting so rigid about what any of those terms might
mean with regard to structure and duration that it
prevents our thinking clearly and creatively.
* What is the procedure for submitting a document for
IESG processing? The IESG makes these procedures up,
and defines them as needed. Having procedures is A
Good Thing -- they very much reduce the possibility of
general confusion and apparent abuse. But, if the
procedures need to be tuned, or if different procedures
are needed for particular cases, we shouldn't need to
spin up a WG to write a document: a WG Chair should be
able to make a determination that the idea has some
consensus and then pass it off to the IESG as a
recommendation by sending a simple email note. The IESG
then ought to be able to hold a short discussion, adopt
the idea if they conclude it would be useful, and
briefly explain not --or engage in some discussion on
the subject-- if they think it is not. Spinning up WGs
and writing documents at that level could actually be a
disadvantage: we really don't want to start getting the
IESG so tied up in BCPs that micromanage their
procedures that we need big-structure working groups
every time some special case comes along.
Let's look for ways to move forward while creating as little
bureaucracy and formal structure as possible. We really don't
have the extra cycles to waste on that stuff if there is any
reasonable alternative in a given case.
john
More information about the Problem-statement
mailing list