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

[Bound, Jim]

One solution is for the ADs to entrust more authority and empower chairs
to make stronger decisions on what should and should not move forward.
But then the AD would have to give up some of their authority too.

/jim

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Margaret Wasserman [mailto:mrw at windriver.com] 
> Sent: Wednesday, June 04, 2003 10:06 AM
> To: Brian E Carpenter
> Cc: problem-statement at alvestrand.no
> Subject: Re: Trusting the IESG to manage the reform process 
> (was:Re:Doingthe Right Things?)
> 
> 
> 
> Hi Brian,
> 
> At 02:49 PM 6/4/2003 +0200, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> >I think there was something else. The IETF also put in place 
> mechanisms 
> >for renewal and accountability of the decision-taking group. 
> And that, 
> >if I'm not mistaken, was to reduce the incidence of hubris.
> >
> >In other words, there was no attempt to solve a scaling problem.
> >
> >What Harald is referring to is a scaling problem, imho.
> 
> Right.  With the growth of the IETF, the increase in 
> complexity and scope of our work, etc. the job of an AD has 
> become so large, time-consuming and complex that there are 
> very few people who can do it.  And, there are even fewer 
> people who are willing to do it...  We need to figure out 
> some way to solve this problem, and that almost certainly 
> involve some reorganization and re-definition of roles at the 
> top of the IETF.
> 
> This could be driven by the IESG -- they could create new 
> roles under themselves and delegate work.  Or, it could be 
> driven by the community.  I actually would have preferred the 
> former, but the IESG seems to have chosen the latter...
> 
> > > If the latter suffices, then in fact we continue to make 
> decisions 
> > > in the same way. We simply target different types of decisions to 
> > > different groups.
> >
> >...or simply give the existing decision-taking group better input to 
> >work with, such as fully reviewed and nit-free documents.
> 
> I think that we're all in agreement that the quality, 
> timeliness and predictability of WG output is unacceptably low.
> 
> It might be amusing to watch WG chairs come up with ways to 
> blame the IESG for this -- they didn't charter us properly, 
> they didn't manage us properly, they didn't give us early 
> feedback, etc... But, that's all just whining.  It is the 
> responsibility of the WG chair to manage the WG to produce 
> high quality and timely work, to get adequate review for our 
> documents, and to manage our milestones.  And, most of us are 
> falling down on the job.
> 
> As I'm sure you know, high quality, nit-free documents don't 
> happen by accident...  And, it doesn't matter how many times 
> we ask for them, or whine about the fact that our editors 
> don't produce them. We need to actually put some quality 
> processes in place during WG creation of these documents to 
> improve the quality of WG output.
> 
> IMO, though, this won't solve the scaling problems that have 
> lead to the ADs job being so large/complex that there is a 
> limited pool of people that can/will do it...  That needs to 
> be solved separately.
> 
> Margaret
> 
> 
> 
> 
>