General comment on draft-ietf-problem-statement-00.txt

[Eric Rescorla]

Margaret Wasserman <mrw at windriver.com> writes:

> Hi Jari,
> 
> >I don't think this is exactly the same thing. My manager at
> >the company would be present on a major demonstration or
> >workshop; the AD is present in the WG meeting maybe six
> >hours per year. If my manager spent only six hours with
> >my major events, he'd have hundreds of direct subordinates,
> >or he'd be spending his time with no touch of reality ;-)
> 
> Excellent point!  I hadn't thought of it that way,
> but that does make sense...
Right, but...

In my experience the best second-level managers meet
privately with their direct subordinates but mostly
don't interfere directly with their second-level
subordinates. The problem with IETF in this context
is that it's pretty much the only time that the
WG chairs have direct personal contact with WG
members [0]. Having the secondlevel manager (in
this case the AD) present at all such interactions
really undercuts the direct manager's authority.


> IMO, the most notable power of the WG chair is the power
> to block work -- exactly the power that we sometimes
> complain about the ADs having.  If a WG chair does not
> issue a last call and/or forward a completed document
> to the AD, the document author/editor doesn't have any
> recourse except an appeal to the AD.  And, in most
> cases, this isn't used.
> 
> We also have the power to allocate meeting time, to
> determine which documents become (and don't become) WG
> work items, manage WG milestones and participate in
> the WG (re-)chartering process.  All-in-all, this
> represents substantial power to affect the direction
> and productivity of the WG.
Perhaps, but in my experience it's power that's very hard
to actually exert. The basic problem, I think, is confusion
abut the relationship between the WG and the WG chair.

In particular, the question is to what extent the chair's
job is to exercise substantive leadership as opposed to
simple procedural leadership. In my experience, chairs
often feel that their job is to reflect the consensus of
the WG, regardless of whether they personally agree with
it. Chairs who do otherwise are often accused of "having
an agenda".

-Ekr

[0] And due to the fact that so much work gets done at or
    just before IETF meetings, most of their total contact
    as well.