Trusting the IESG to manage the reform process (was: Re:Doingthe Right Things?)

Bound, Jim Jim.Bound at
Sat Jun 7 23:16:46 CEST 2003


A lot of the problems are not solvable with a process or ruleset or even
a mandate.

When an AD is wrong give it up and move on OR if the WG overwhelming has
been defeated by the WG the AD then they should give it up.  This is
sooooooooooooo important to be an AD.  The AD primary responsibility is
that the specs sent to the IESG are clear, interoperable and with other
protocols dependent on them, I think now is secure or stated where it is
not, and most of all keep their Area going and forward.  An AD must
accept in the role that what they feel is the correct technical answer
will be the minority and they will loose.  Use the words you want I
can't and won't appease the left distaste of words like win, loose,
best, worst, etc.  

For example WG Chairs very rarely have this problem because they are in
the spot light everyday of the WG they have to look into that mirror
everyday and face the music as a peer to the WG and the leader.  ADs sit
at another level.  The trick is to make them have to look in the mirror
too and face the music.

And doing it the plenary is completely useless.  It is almost like a
joke and the IESG hopes people yell at them for a good time.  To me the
plenary is nothing but a joke. To me usually not entertaining.


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand [mailto:harald at] 
> Sent: Tuesday, June 03, 2003 2:16 PM
> To: Brian E Carpenter; John C Klensin
> Cc: problem-statement at
> Subject: Re: Trusting the IESG to manage the reform process 
> (was: Re:Doingthe Right Things?)
> --On tirsdag, juni 03, 2003 17:26:50 +0200 Brian E Carpenter 
> <brian at> wrote:
> > John C Klensin wrote:
> >>
> >> Summary: If we can't trust the current IESG for reform-process 
> >> management, we are in deep trouble.
> >
> > We have no choice except to trust them, because the IESG 
> approving a 
> > BCP is the only way (short of anarchy) of effecting change.
> >
> > So, as you were suggesting, let's divide-and-conquer by cutting off 
> > bite sized problems, designing solutions, and sending them to the 
> > IESG.
> >
> > Er, I'm working on one of those. If everybody here worked 
> on one, we 
> > might be done soon.
> Brian,
> while I agree with you on a number of issues.....
> in side conversations, I've made a number of comments on the 
> difficulty of 
> crossing a chasm in two steps.
> In particular, I believe that the problem:
> 2.5.1 Span of Authority
>    Overt authority in the IETF is concentrated in the small number of
>    people sitting on the IESG at that time. Existing IETF 
> processes work
>    to funnel tasks on to this small number of people 
> (primarily the Area
>    Directors (ADs) in the IESG).  This concentration slows up the
>    process and puts a very large load of responsibility on to the
>    shoulders of these people who are required to act as the senior
>    management for Working Group (WG) chairs as well as acting 
> as quality
>    backstops for the large number of documents issued by the IETF.
> cannot be solved by making small changes to the IETF and IESG 
> procedures; 
> we need to change the way we make decisions, which is a BIG change.
> [yes, I have issues with the wording. But that's not important.]
> If there is a core problem that must be solved and cannot be 
> solved by 
> biting off small pieces, I think we cannot afford to ignore it.
>                        Harald

More information about the Problem-statement mailing list